University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Post-secondary distance education: cultivating a sense of belonging through teaching presence

(USC Thesis Other)

Post-secondary distance education: cultivating a sense of belonging through teaching presence

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Post-secondary Distance Education:
Cultivating a Sense of Belonging Through Teaching Presence
Sylvia G. Pimentel
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024

© Copyright by Sylvia G. Pimentel 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Sylvia G. Pimentel certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Ravneet Tiwana
Brandesha Tynes
Patricia Elaine Tobey, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
The virtual distance gap and extraneous in-person strategies challenge faculty to cultivate a sense
of belonging with distance education post-secondary students. The qualitative phenomenological
study examined teaching presence, an element of the community of inquiry (Col) model, and the
need to belong theory as essential constructs in meeting students’ belonging needs in connection
with the culturally engaging campus environments (CECE) model. Ten faculty members from 2-
and 4-year institutions shared teaching presence strategies to cultivate belonging through faculty
attributes, student-centered approaches, and communication presence. Faculty identified four
primary challenges to belonging: course disengagement, personalizing virtual students,
technology access, and the student’s home environment. Additional findings included the
importance of diversified faculty roles, project and team-based learning, and a network and
referral system to meet students’ needs. The teaching presence strategies promoted students’
well-being, inclusive of self-efficacy, mental health, and academic success. However, the faculty
noted that the lack of teaching presence, the faculty’s equity-minded deficiencies, and the
absence of humanization could harm belonging. While faculty indicated they were primarily
responsible for fostering belonging due to frequent student contact, they concurred on the shared
institutional agent responsibility. Consequently, institutional directives are essential to
implement the faculty’s recommendations for required online certification and professional
development for all staff on equity, diversity, and inclusion. Additional recommendations
included a dedicated distance education department, a centralized belongingness digital center,
and institutional endorsement of a culture of belonging for the teaching community.
Keywords: sense of belonging, teaching presence, distance education, psychosocial
stressors, culturally inclusive campus environments

v
Dedication
To every college student: make your dreams a reality, for you belong where you choose to be.
To my sister Veronica and my brother Ricardo. Always and forever.
To my Paw-some Family: Carolina, Mikko, Snoopy, Angel, and Katya. Love you lots.
To my Mom, nieces, and nephews. You are in my heart.

vi
Acknowledgments
Thank you to my friends Fatima, Lizbeth, Evie, Mark, Brian, Antionese, Genaro, and
Deisy, for being the caring and wonderful YOU. I am grateful you chose me to share your
smiles.
Thank you to Dr. Patricia Tobey for walking with me on my journey. Your expertise and
kindness are greatly appreciated.
Thank you to Dr. Ravneet Tiwana and Dr. Brandesha Tynes for your guidance.
Glad to have my cohort friends be part of this experience, Dr. Sheryl Guse, Dr. Susan
Fant, and Dr. Paul De La Cerda.
Thank you to the faculty for being gracious with your time and contributions to the
study. I admire your commitment and creativity. Your student belonging interventions take only
a moment to implement, but the transformation lasts a lifetime.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Context and Background of the Problem............................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions.................................................................... 3
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 3
Overview of Conceptual Framework and Methodology .................................................... 4
Definitions........................................................................................................................... 5
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 7
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .......................................................................................... 8
Belonging and Teaching Presence in Distance Education.................................................. 8
Bridging the Virtual Distance Gap ................................................................................... 14
Belonging in Higher Education ........................................................................................ 16
Psychosocial Stressors...................................................................................................... 24
Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................... 30
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 33
Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 35
Research Questions........................................................................................................... 35
Participant Sample ............................................................................................................ 36
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 36
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 37

viii
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 37
Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 38
Credibility and Trustworthiness........................................................................................ 38
Ethical Considerations...................................................................................................... 39
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 39
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 40
Chapter Four: Findings................................................................................................................. 42
Participants........................................................................................................................ 43
Findings: Research Question 1 ......................................................................................... 49
Challenges to Fostering Sense of Belonging .................................................................... 58
Summary: Research Question 1........................................................................................ 62
Findings: Research Question 2 ......................................................................................... 62
Ineffective Teaching Presence Strategies ......................................................................... 70
Summary: Research Question 2........................................................................................ 73
Findings: Research Question 3 ......................................................................................... 74
Summary: Research Question 3........................................................................................ 77
Additional Findings .......................................................................................................... 78
Summary of Other Findings.............................................................................................. 81
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 83
RQ1: Promoting Belonging Through Teaching Presence ................................................ 83
RQ 2: Belonging and Student Well-Being........................................................................ 89
RQ 3: Institutional Promotion of Teaching Presence ....................................................... 97
Faculty Recommendations................................................................................................ 97
A Model for Change ....................................................................................................... 100
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 102

ix
References................................................................................................................................... 105
Appendix A: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ............................................................... 122
Post-secondary Distance Education: Cultivating Sense of Belonging Through
Teaching Presence .......................................................................................................... 122
Key Information.............................................................................................................. 122
Purpose............................................................................................................................ 122
Procedure ........................................................................................................................ 122
Privacy and Confidentiality ............................................................................................ 123
Investigator Contact Information.................................................................................... 123
IRB Contact Information ................................................................................................ 123
Appendix B: Conceptual Framework Alignment ....................................................................... 124
Appendix C: Interview Questionnaire ........................................................................................ 125
Demographic Information............................................................................................... 125
Interview Questions........................................................................................................ 125

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Demographics............................................................................................... 44
Table B1: Conceptual Framework Alignment............................................................................ 124

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) Model of College Success........ 21
Figure 2: Strayhorn’s Framework of College Student’s Sense of Belonging............................... 23
Figure 3: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 31
Figure 4: Supplemental Conceptual Framework ......................................................................... 93
Figure 5: The CECE Change Model........................................................................................... 101

1
Chapter One: Introduction
Post-secondary distance education programs challenge faculty to cultivate sense of
belonging in a non-traditional environment. Conventional classroom interventions such as visual
cues, in-person strategies, and immediate faculty contact and feedback do not translate to online
learning (Jacob & Radhai, 2016; Park & Choi, 2009). Consequently, a primary goal of faculty is
to design inclusive learning spaces to support collaborative communities. Student engagement
closes the transactional distance, increases online visibility, and strengthens peer and
institutional connectivity. Through teaching presence, faculty meet the designated task of
adapting pedagogy to promote belonging and student well-being.
Context and Background of the Problem
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 19,036,612 post-secondary
students enrolled in distance education in 2021. Due to course modality and technology
interface, traditional classroom activities and student integration in a virtual environment are
impractical. Faculty modify pedagogy to promote student engagement (Garrison et al., 2000).
Teaching presence “is the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for
the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes”
(Anderson et al., 2001, p. 5). Teaching presence and student engagement are the two leading
academic success predictors essential in nurturing belonging (Astin, 1993; Lear et al., 2005;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Peacock et al., 2020; Strayhorn, 2019).
Sense of belonging is defined as the subjective cognitive and emotional experience of
connectedness, which validates the student’s sense of self (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Means &
Pyne, 2017; Strayhorn, 2019). Belonging encourages peer-to-peer, faculty-student, and
institutional engagement, as demonstrated by the students’ behavior and cognitive or affective

2
indicators (Bond, 2020). The students’ relational value leads to confidence, self-efficacy, and
reliance (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Martin & Bollinger, 2018). A sense of belonging supports
degree attainment, life satisfaction, and institutional connections (Holinka, 2015; Moore, 1993).
Sense of belonging in post-secondary institutions incorporates the interconnection
between student antecedents, culture, and relationships (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Museus et al.,
2017a; Soria & Stebleton, 2015; Strayhorn, 2019). The campus activities to promote belonging
and the institutional response to students’ antecedents influence the psychosocial needs and
challenges experienced by diverse students (Museus et al., 2017b). A marginal institutional
commitment to promoting belonging lowers student motivation, exacerbates feelings of
hopelessness, and compromises daily functioning (Huesman, 2014; Stebleton et al., 2014). The
students’ perception of institutional apathy is disempowering, leading to a negative self-concept
that often results in goal abandonment (Soria & Stebleton, 2015; Zumbrunn et al., 2012).
Consequently, students are increasingly susceptible to a low sense of belonging and poor
academic performance (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Nuynt et al., 2017; Wilczyńska et al., 2015).
A low sense of belonging, or deprivation, is counterproductive to students’ psychosocial
and emotional well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Wilczyńska et al., 2015). Deprivation and
repeated exposure to stressors debilitate students’ coping abilities, increasing mental health
concerns (Holinka, 2015). Students reported anxiety, depression, and social isolation as the most
common effects of deprivation (Holinka, 2015; Leary, 1990; Stillman et al., 2009). The American
College Health Association Student Survey (2021) found that students’ top three impediments to
academic performance were stress 43.4%, anxiety 34.9%, and depression 25.4%. Detrimental
responses to deprivation include escape avoidance and self-destructive behaviors such as using
drugs and alcohol and even suicide (Acharya et al., 2018; Deasy et al., 2004; Joiner, 2005).

3
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
As the accelerated growth of post-secondary distance education programs challenges
faculty to cultivate sense of belonging in non-traditional environments, faculty must adapt
pedagogy to meet the changing student needs (Jacob & Radhai, 2016; Park & Choi, 2009).
The study examined the role of teaching presence in cultivating students’ belonging,
engagement, and well-being. In addition, institutional support to promote teaching presence was
examined (Garrison et al., 2000; Museus et al., 2017b; Peacock et al., 2020).
Three research guided this study:
1. What sense of belonging strategies are utilized by higher education online
instructors within the community of inquiry model’s teaching presence?
2. What are the higher education online instructor’s experiences on how teaching
presence cultivates students’ sense of belonging and well-being?
3. How do higher education institutions support and promote online instructors’
teaching presence?
Significance of the Study
Faculty are considered a mediating element in promoting sense of belonging. However,
research from the faculty’s experience is limited compared to the available student research (Bair
& Bair, 2011; De Gagne & Walters, 2010; Martin et al., 2020; Museus et al., 2017b; Strayhorn,
2019). Teaching presence influences student engagement, online visibility, and institutional
attachment (Bolliger & Halupa, 2018; Hurtado et al., 2015; Jorgensen et al., 2018; Phirangee &
Malec, 2017; Thomas et al., 2014). Faculty cultivate a sense of belonging through teaching
presence strategies leading to relationship formation (Garrison et al., 2000). Students perceived
relational value as positively affecting their well-being and academic performance.

4
However, the absence of belonging or deprivation, along with psychosocial stressors,
aggravates the students’ emotional and mental health, leading to vulnerable and compromised
coping mechanisms (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2018; Rolim et al.,
2019). As the transactional distance gap challenges institutions to close the transactional distance
gap, new inclusionary strategies must emerge to strengthen students’ online visibility (Garrison
et al., 2000; Moore, 2019). Faculty need institutional support to sustain their teaching presence
role as they meet the growing demands of distance education (Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2018;
Rolim et al., 2019). The conceptual framework provides an overview of the relationship between
the need to belong theory, teaching presence, and culturally inclusive environments.
Overview of Conceptual Framework and Methodology
Two theories and one institutional model were adapted for the study to examine the
faculty’s experiences of cultivating sense of belonging through teaching presence. First, the need
to belong theory’s premise is that human beings have an innate need to belong and are driven by
motivating components that stimulate goal-directed activities (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
Relationships are the conduit for meeting belonging needs through social bonds and group
membership (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Second, the teaching presence element from the Col
model addresses online learning. Teaching presence “is the design, facilitation, and direction of
cognitive and social processes to realize personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile
learning outcomes” (Anderson et al., 2001, p. 5). According to Garrison et al. (2000), social and
cognitive presence refers to students’ ability to interact authentically in an online community and
with the learning components. Finally, the CECE model fosters a culture of inclusivity through
institutional agents’ cultural relevance and responsiveness (Museus et al., 2017b).

5
The study utilized a qualitative phenomenological approach to interview 10 distance
education faculty. According to Creswell and Creswell (2018), qualitative research focuses on
meaning-making through words. The research questions explored how teaching presence
cultivated sense of belonging with online students. The narrative experience of the study
participants helped the researcher understand people’s lived experiences and social constructs
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Definitions
Asynchronous learning: An online teaching method used for independent student learning
with pre-designated resource material provided by the faculty (Moller, 1998).
Cognitive presence: One of three elements of the Col model to support student learning,
such as critical thinking skills and intellectual content interaction (Garrison et al., 2000).
Community of inquiry theoretical framework (Col model): A theoretical framework used
in distance education to analyze the structure of students’ online learning. The Col model
includes the relationship between three types of presence: cognitive, social, and teaching
(Garrison et al., 2000).
Distance education: A formal institution-based learning system connecting students and
faculty through telecommunications (Schlosser & Simonson, 2009).
High-impact practices (HIPs): A set of institutional practices that enhance sense of
belonging, including adequate student programming and access, engagement opportunities, and
student validation by institutional agents (Means & Pyne, 2017).
Need to belong theory: The theory asserts the innate need to belong, driving human
beings to form social networks that support productive relationships with temporal continuity
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995).

6
Othering: Students become invisible online by a dominant group (Phirangee & Malec,
2017).
Psychosocial stressors: A person experiences distress and imbalance from a perceived
threat that interferes with their psychological and social ability to function (Schneiderman et al.,
2005).
Sense of belonging: The subjective cognitive and emotional experience of connectedness
that validates the sense of self (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Means & Pyne, 2017; Strayhorn, 2019).
Social presence: One of the three elements of the Col model that supports student’s
ability to interact authentically online with peers and faculty (Garrison et al., 2000).
Student engagement: “The energy and effort that students employ within their learning
community, observable via any number of behavioral, cognitive, or affective indicators across a
continuum” (Bond et al., 2020, p. 3).
Teaching presence: The faculty’s participation in the online community is one of the
three interconnected Col model elements responsible for designing the student’s educational
experience (Garrison et al., 2000).
Theory of transactional distance (TD): “The gap between the understanding of a teacher
(or teaching team) and that of a learner” (Moore, 2019, p. 33), inclusive of dialogue, structure,
and autonomy.
Well-being: “A state of well-being in which every individual realizes his or her own
potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is
able to make a contribution to her or his community” (as cited in Halbreich, 2022, p. 705).

7
Organization of the Study
The dissertation is organized using a traditional five-chapter model. Chapter One
introduces the study and background. Chapter Two reviews the literature with the relevant
themes of belonging, teaching presence, and culturally inclusive institutions. Chapter Three
focuses on the research methodology, rationale for the qualitative study, and data collection and
analysis. Chapter Four reports the study findings. Finally, Chapter Five concludes with a
discussion of the findings in relation to the conceptual framework, the faculty recommendations,
and future research.

8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The literature review examines the role of teaching presence in cultivating a sense of
belonging with post-secondary distance education students. The lack of face-to-face contact and
extraneous in-class interventions pose risks to students’ degree of engagement, institutional
connectivity, and well-being. The chapter begins with the purpose of belonging and teaching
presence in distance education, followed by the institutional role in bridging the virtual distance
gap to promote student engagement. Next, the emergence of sense of belonging in higher
education incorporates theoretical perspectives, high-impact practices, institutional human
capital, effective teaching presence strategies, and culturally inclusive cultures through the
CECE model. The section includes psychosocial stressors that affect students’ mental and
emotional health. Consequently, students’ vulnerability leads to isolation, compromised coping
mechanisms, and deprivation or low sense of belonging, with the risk of long-term
consequences. The literature review concludes with the conceptual framework integrating the
need to belong theory, the Col model’s teaching presence, and the CECE model for inclusive
campus environments.
Belonging and Teaching Presence in Distance Education
The acceleration of distance education programs has been progressive, with over 19
million post-secondary students enrolled in 2021 (National Center for Education Statistics,
2021). To cultivate sense of belonging, institutions must address teaching presence, transactional
distance, and student online visibility through engagement (Bigatel & Malizia, 2018; Garrison et
al., 2000; Hurtado & Carter, 2005; Moore, 2018).

9
Belonging’s Purpose
The need to belong is universal and innate, and “human beings are naturally driven
toward establishing and sustaining belongingness” (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p. 499). Carvallo
and Gabriel (2006) found that even individuals with a dismissive-avoidant attachment style
valued being wanted and needed, affirming the universal need to belong (Baumeister & Leary,
1995). Individuals meet belonging needs through two criteria: establishing frequent positive
interactions with a few people and forming persistent social bonds with temporal continuity
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). According to Baumeister and Leary (1995), reciprocal caring and
frequent contact must characterize positive relationships as mutually rewarding and enact
favorable interpersonal outcomes. Being in a relationship has protective elements, including
psychosocial wellness, stress management, and physical and emotional health (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995; Dueñas & Gloria, 2017). Consequently, relationships provide individuals with
validation, a sense of purpose, and goal orientation (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
The quality of the relationship contributes to identity formation that supports the sense of
self (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Maslow, 1943). However, the quantity and type of relationships
are subjective. According to Baumeister and Leary (1995), individuals need only a certain
number of relationships before reaching satiation, or “the diminished motivation that ensues
when the need to belong is already well satisfied” (p. 515). Individuals place a higher value on a
few close relationships rather than on having multiple acquaintances. If there is a relationship
loss, the individual can replace most social bonds with another person, known as substitution
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The individual’s judgment of their role and subjective perception of
their relational value designates the degree of social connectivity (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). In
addition to social connections, belonging has multiple benefits.

10
Belonging influences physical and mental health and is vital for individual well-being
(Wilczyńska et al., 2015). The individual’s thought process, emotions, and subsequent actions
lead to a positive human response (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). A sense of belonging regulates
life satisfaction and coping mechanisms, driving individuals to focus on goal-directed activities
(Wilczyńska et al., 2015). However, when individuals face increased psychosocial problems,
coping mechanisms become compromised, leading to low sense of belonging or deprivation
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Wilczyńska et al., 2015). A countermeasure to deprivation is
teaching presence due to its importance in promoting student engagement.
Teaching Presence
The Col model’s teaching presence element is essential to facilitate student engagement
and sense of belonging (Garrison et al., 2000; Peacock et al., 2020; Rolim et al., 2019). Teaching
presence is one of three elements of the Col model designed to develop and evaluate online
learning through the interconnection of cognitive and social presence (Garrison et al., 2000).
Constructivism principles guide the Col model, where learning is active and dynamic, reliant on
interactive social models for knowledge exchange (Garrison et al., 2000). While students are
independent and capable learners, teaching presence promotes in-depth and complex learning
through relationship formation and participation in communities of inquiry (Garrison & Akyol,
2015). The three significant functions of teaching presence are design and organization,
facilitating discourse, and direct instruction (Akyol & Garrison, 2019).
Design and Organization
Faculty members are responsible for designing the students’ educational experiences by
organizing the curriculum to maximize learning (Anderson et al., 2001). The design methods
include structuring the syllabi with timelines and accessible course activities and assessments

11
(Anderson et al., 2001). Structure is related to pedagogy and institutional responsiveness to
students’ individual needs (Saba & Shearer, 2018). Faculty incorporate online learning
modalities through virtual medium tools, such as applications and learning management systems.
Faculty establish student participation guidelines as a final design and organization function
(Anderson et al., 2001). According to Soffer and Nachmias (2017), students reported “high
comprehension of the course structure design” (p. 535), which supports students’ course
navigation when coupled with faculty communication (Song et al., 2014).
According to Song et al. (2014), students viewed course design as one of the most
important factors (83%) for course success. An effective structure includes adaptability to the
changing needs of online learners while addressing current technological demands (Saba &
Shearer, 2018). According to Moore (2019), curriculum design ranges from high to low degrees
of structure. Highly structured programs have increased faculty interaction with specific
objectives, clear expectations, and outcomes with minimal deviation, compromising individual
learning needs (Moore, 2018). Courses with less structure provide more student choice regarding
learning objectives since students can utilize various modalities for learning in combination with
faculty accessibility and degree of discourse (Garrison et al., 2000; Moore, 2018).
Facilitating Discourse
Facilitation as a “means to an end” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 90) refers to the designated
activities that encourage student engagement. The facilitating discourse function strengthens
social and cognitive presence to achieve educational outcomes (Garrison et al., 2000). The
faculty’s focus on student engagement through activities, such as discussion posts, interactive
assignments, and workshops, increases student visibility (Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2018). A
consistent faculty presence and increased student visibility support the formation of online

12
learning communities (Phirangee & Malec, 2017; Rolim et al., 2019). Faculty feedback through
direct instruction is essential for student validation and maintaining course flow.
Direct Instruction
Faculty “provide intellectual and scholarly leadership through direct instruction and share
their subject matter knowledge with students” (Anderson et al., 2001, p. 8). Faculty introduce
alternative learning resources to expand students’ subject knowledge, problem-solving, and skill
acquisition (Anderson et al., 2001). Interacting teaching presence with social and cognitive
presence fosters optimum online environments (Rolim et al., 2019).
Cognitive Presence
Cognitive presence is essential for academic success to support learning in critical
thinking skills, content comprehension, and the ability to interact knowledgeably with the
content material (Garrison et al., 2000; Rolim et al., 2019). According to Garrison et al. (2000),
cognitive presence has several indicators that support student learning: the sense of puzzlement,
information exchange, connecting ideas, and applying new ideas. Learning occurs on a
continuum supported by course design and facilitation. The student’s cognitive engagement and
social presence are critical for academic achievement (Garrison et al., 2000; Rolim et al., 2019).
Social Presence
Social presence garners the most attention because it addresses students’ online
participation (Rolim et al., 2019). Social presence is the student’s ability to interact authentically
with peers and the faculty in an online community, and it is measured by three indicators:
emotions, risk-free expression, and collaboration (Garrison et al., 2000). The affective
components inherent in social presence and online participation support the development of
sense of belonging (Garrison et al., 2000; Jiang, 2017; Phirangee & Malec, 2017). Through

13
online visibility, students form relationships that are integral to creating communities of learning
(Phirangee & Malec, 2017; Rolim et al., 2019). Richardson et al. (2017) found two positive
correlations supporting the Col model. The first correlation was between social presence and
satisfaction, and the second was between social presence and perceived learning (Richardson et
al., 2017). Evidence-based teaching presence strategies facilitate students’ online participation
and interaction with the content material to enhance self-satisfaction (Baumeister & Leary, 1995;
Garrison et al., 2000; Richardson et al., 2017).
Effective Teaching Presence Strategies
Martin et al. (2019) studied award-winning faculty’s teaching practices and found
successful strategies within four faculty role categories. First, the faculty, as the designer,
“recommended following a systematic approach to content, backward design, course
organization, meeting learner needs, and student interaction” (p. 40). The practical course design
was essential for the overall content outcome. The second role was the faculty as the assessor,
where faculty used assessments with rubrics, such as portfolios, weekly assignments, blogs, and
formative evaluations (Martin et al., 2019). Faculty feedback on assessments needs to be timely
for student learning to be effective (Martin et al., 2019).
The third faculty role was as evaluator, where institutional participation in course review,
quality, and content alignment was critical (Martin et al., 2019). Active faculty involvement with
the subject matter and institutional participation strengthens the quality of online programs.
Finally, the fourth role is faculty as facilitators, where the recommendations included “timely
response and feedback, availability and presence, and periodic communication” (Martin et al.,
2019, p. 41). The teaching presence roles and related activities support the development of the

14
faculty-student relationship, essential for decreasing the virtual distance (Bigatel & Malizia,
2018; Martin & Bollinger, 2018; Strayhorn, 2019).
Bridging the Virtual Distance Gap
The degree of psychological distance between students and the institution in virtual
learning environments compounds the development of sense of belonging (Anh & Davis, 2020;
Moore, 2018). According to Moore (2018), TD is defined as “the gap between the understanding
of a teacher (or teaching team) and that of a learner” (p. 33). TD is modulated by varying degrees
of dialogue, structure, and autonomy as the means to close the distance gap and strengthen
learning (Saba & Shearer, 2018). Dialogue is the exchange between faculty and students,
designating the relationship is bilateral, dynamic, and subjective (Saba & Shearer, 2018).
Dialogue facilitates content delivery and comprehension through various modalities, such as
direct contact via meetings and email and indirect communication through discussion blogs and
online participatory activities (Saba & Shearer, 2018). Structure is related to instructional
pedagogy and institutional responsiveness to students' individual needs (Saba & Shearer, 2018).
Students’ varying degrees of autonomy determine the level of dialogue engagement (Shaba &
Shearer, 2018). While some students pursue the course objectives more independently with
minimal faculty feedback, others focus on increased dialogue (Moore, 2018; Shaba & Shearer,
2018).
Dialogue, structure, and autonomy are necessary to bridge the distance gap. Programs
lacking all three components contend with low student engagement, institutional disconnection,
and attrition (Moore, 2018; Shaba & Shearer, 2018). The faculty-student relationship minimizes
TD through increased contact (Bollinger & Halupa, 2018; Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2018). To
bridge the TD in a virtual learning environment, faculty must implement non-traditional

15
strategies to support students academically and personally (Moore, 2018). Consequently, student
engagement increases as institutions bridge TD (Bollinger & Halupa, 2018).
Student engagement is one of the strongest academic success predictors (Astin, 1993;
Lear et al., 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Bond et al. (2020) defined student engagement
as “the energy and effort that students employ within their learning community, observable via
any number of behavioral, cognitive, or affective indicators across a continuum” (p. 3). The U.S.
Department of Education recognized the importance of engagement through the federal
guidelines for post-secondary institutions, which became effective on July 1, 2021 (Department
of Education Federal Register, 2020). The federal guidelines relate to the degree and type of
faculty and student engagement, required academic participation, and the use of new
technologies for virtual content delivery (Department of Education Federal Register, 2020).
The dynamic faculty-student relationship incorporates how students engage in the
activities and the faculty’s engagement efforts (Bigatel & Malizia, 2018). Kilgo et al. (2016)
conducted a study using Pascarella’s model of assessing change of environments on student
learning and development. Kilgo et al. (2016) state that students’ psychological well-being
correlates with sports participation as peer educators and resident assistants. Students’ degree of
involvement is influenced by their efficacy and self-reliance (Martin & Bollinger, 2018). The
institutional recognition of the benefit of student engagement contributed to the design of highimpact practices (HIPs) that support students’ academic and personal success (Holinka, 2015;
Kuh et al., 2017; Moore, 1993).
HIPs are described by Johnson et al. (2017) as “the interplay between the individual and
the institution” (p. 526). Ku first coined the term HIPs in 2006 to identify 11 effective
institutional practices to support student learning, such as 1st-year seminars, learning

16
communities, research and internship opportunities, and global learning (Association of
American Colleges & Universities, 2023; Kuh et al., 2017). HIPs reinforce institutional
attachment, retention, and degree attainment (DeAngelo & Franke, 2016; Ribera et al., 2017).
According to Khu et al. (2017), HIPs compensate minority and first-generation students who are
less academically prepared. In addition, Ribera et al. (2017) found that HIPs support nontraditional students who work, attend school part-time, or commute. As students’ connection to
the institution intensifies, so does their degree of participation (Hurtado & Carter, 1997;
Strayhorn, 2019). Successful HIPs “induce high levels of student engagement in substantive
tasks that in turn deepen learning” (Kuh et al., 2017, p. 11). The institutional agents complement
HIPs with validation practices that foster belonging in higher education (Means & Pyne, 2017).
Belonging in Higher Education
The emergence of belonging in higher education, as an essential construct for
individuals’ mental, emotional, and social well-being, enhanced students’ academic experience
(Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Maslow, 1943; Museus et al., 2017a; Soria & Stebleton, 2015;
Strayhorn, 2019). The literature review includes the importance of belonging on a micro level
with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (1943), where individuals negotiate the stages towards selfactualization. The need for meaning-making motivates individuals to strive for productive
relationships that provide relational value and a sense of purpose. As individuals transition to the
macro level, post-secondary institutions expand belonging to include antecedents, campus
climate, and internal and external relationships (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Museus et al., 2017a;
Soria & Stebleton, 2015; Strayhorn, 2019). The final section includes the institutional
responsibility to meet the belonging needs of a diverse student body and consists of designing
inclusive campus environments staffed with knowledgeable institutional agents willing to meet

17
students’ needs (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Maslow, 1943; Museus et
al., 2017a; Soria & Stebleton, 2015; Strayhorn 2019). As students transition to college, belonging
and meaning-making take precedence to support peer and institutional connectivity.
Belonging and Meaning-Making
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs includes belonging, personal validity, social connectivity,
and need fulfillment for self-actualization (Maslow, 1943). Individuals must meet physiological
and safety needs to transition to the third tier of love and belonging needs. Relationships,
connections, and affect support the third stage of love and belonging (Maslow, 1943). Group
membership provides individuals with validation and role recognition. The group’s affirmation
fulfills the love and belonging stage, enabling the transition to Maslow’s (1943) fourth and fifth
tiers of self-esteem needs and self-actualization. Throughout the journey for self-actualization,
individuals constantly search for meaning and a sense of purpose in their lives (Maslow, 1943).
Meaning-making is a motivating component in guiding human behavior (Frankl, 1959;
Lambert et al., 2013). According to Frankl (1959), individuals strive to find meaning in order to
understand the world and develop a sense of purpose. As a primary motivator for individuals,
meaning-making is a highly personal experience guided by a sense of responsibility (Frankl,
1959). Consequently, individuals’ experiences are tailored and influenced by their surroundings
and social interactions (Frankl, 1959). Lambert et al. (2013) reported a strong correlation
between sense of belonging and meaningfulness through relationships. Human beings strive to
satisfy the four specific needs to find life meaningful: a sense of purpose, efficacy, value, and
positive self-worth (Baumeister, 1991). Relationships are the primary conduit for role validation,
and social networks drive individuals to fulfill belonging needs.

18
Relationships support individuals’ sense of self and personal value. Bollen and Hoyle
(1990) identified perceived cohesion as the individual’s perception and feelings of value within
their social network. According to Bollen and Hoyle (1990), “sense of belonging encompasses
both cognitive and affective elements” (p. 482). Group identification and the perceived degree of
membership elicit feelings of morale, which can be positive or negative depending on the quality
of relationships (Bollen & Hoyle, 1990). The expanded social circle in post-secondary education
compels individuals to pursue belonging and identity formation to establish their role within the
group (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Bollen & Hoyle, 1990).
Post-secondary Institutions
In post-secondary institutions, sense of belonging comprises the relationship between
personal characteristics, college culture, student perception, and institutional attachment
(Cockshaw et al., 2014; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Museus et al., 2017b; Strayhorn, 2019).
Previous theories, such as Tinto’s theory of departure (1988), primarily placed the responsibility
for academic success on the student. According to Milem et al. (1997), Tinto stated that students,
not the institution, were responsible for college integration by negotiating separation, transition,
and incorporation stages. Museus et al. (2017b) cited two significant criticisms of Tinto’s theory:
the lack of student diversity in his sample and the exclusion of institutional responsibility in
cultivating sense of belonging. According to Museus et al. (2017b), Tinto minimized institutional
and environmental factors while magnifying student behavior as responsible for academic
success. However, subsequent theoretical frameworks and models incorporated the importance
of institutional climate in fostering a sense of belonging for diverse student populations.
A student’s college experience derives from a combination of antecedents, such as
familial and ethnic background, work experience, gender, and interpersonal characteristics

19
(Hurtado & Carter, 1997). The relationship between personal antecedents and college climate as
essential for determining students’ institutional engagement or lack thereof emerged in higher
education (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). Minorities benefitted from the inclusive relationship since
they primarily relied on existing external supports while developing institutional relationships
(Hurtado et al., 2015). According to Hurtado and Carter (1997), college relationships and group
membership appeared to mediate student success. The positive feelings of group belonging
enhanced the students’ perception of their relational value to others within the institution,
guiding their sense-making behavior (Hurtado & Carter, 1997).
According to Rendon (1994), extending validation practices outside the classroom is vital
to support students’ college transition. Rendon’s theory of validation (Rendon, 1994) states that
institutional agents must implement academic and interpersonal validation practices for students
to thrive. Consequently, the recognition and respect granted to students allows them to view
themselves as capable learners, which supports retention (Rendon, 1994). The role of internal
and external support for student success in the form of learning communities includes validated
classrooms where professional development is essential to support students (Rendon, 1994). The
addition of a comprehensive perspective in higher education by Rendon (1994) highlights the
importance of knowledgeable institutional human capital to meet students’ need for belonging.
Institutional Human Capital
Institutions cognizant of faculty as valuable human capital invest in staff development
and resources (Hurtado et al., 2015). The faculty-student relationship fosters attachment and
recognizes the student as an integral part of the institutional community (Garrison et al., 2000;
Museus et al., 2017a; Strayhorn, 2019). Culturally sensitive and relevant interventions promoted
by the institution and the faculty strengthen institutional identification (Rendon, 1989; Seider et

20
al., 2015). As faculty create the conditions for engagement, students participate in academic and
social opportunities with peers and institutional staff (Seider et al., 2015).
A supportive virtual environment creates a “culture of learning” (Peacock et al., 2020, p.
26). Jorgensen et al. (2018) found that students contributed to relationship formation by
combining social and institutional connectedness, with the faculty playing an essential role.
According to Liu et al. (2007), students and faculty strive for a sense of online community where
relationships provide validation and online visibility (Phirangee & Malec, 2017). Group
membership promotes role validation, supporting students’ self-confidence and sense of value
(Jorgensen et al., 2018; Phirangee & Malec, 2017; Strayhorn, 2019). Human capital is essential
in contributing to culturally inclusive environments.

21
Culturally Inclusive Environments
The CECE model provides a holistic understanding of the relationship between student
antecedents, institutional roles and responsibilities, and student capital, as shown in Figure 1
(Museus et al., 2017b). The CECE model proposes that culturally inclusive environments nurture
students’ sense of belonging. The institutional connection benefits students’ academic
performance, agency, and self-efficacy (Museus et al., 2017b). Through the CECE model’s
cultural relevance and cultural responsibility categories, institutions incorporate a strengthsbased approach to support students’ learning capacity and aspirations (Museus et al., 2017b).
Figure 1
CECE Model
Note: Adapted from “The Impact of Culturally Engaging Campus Environments on Sense of
Belonging,” by S. Museus, V. Yi, and N. Saelua, 2017, Review of Higher Education, 40(2), 187–
215 (https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0001). Copyright 2017 by Johns Hopkins University Press.

22
The CECE model’s first category of cultural relevance is the degree to which the campus
culture reflects students’ backgrounds (Museus et al., 2017b). Cultural relevance includes five
indicators: cultural familiarity, culturally relevant knowledge, cultural community service, crosscultural engagement, and cultural validation (Museus et al., 2017b). The institution promotes
students’ culture and identity with relevant activities and events led by culturally knowledgeable
staff (Museus et al., 2017b). The CECE model’s second category of cultural responsibility
incorporates the institutional understanding of its diverse student body (Museus et al., 2017b).
The institutional agent’s knowledge of the students’ culture and value systems facilitates service
provision and validates students’ sense of belonging (Museus et al., 2017b). Strayhorn’s (2019)
framework of college student’s sense of belonging further contributes to an inclusive campus
environment to meet students’ needs.
Strayhorn’s Framework
Strayhorn’s (2019) framework of college students’ sense of belonging reflects Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs, the need to belong theory, and inclusive institutions (Baumeister & Leary,
1995; Maslow, 1943; Strayhorn, 2019). The seven core elements of belonging by Strayhorn
(2019) depicted in Figure 2, are that sense of belonging is a universal and fundamental human
need, motivating and driving human behavior, that determines the importance of belonging on
context, time, and other factors, and is related to mattering, which influences identity and leads
to positive change and outcomes. The final element is that belonging needs to be satisfied as a
condition for change (Strayhorn, 2019).

23
Figure 2
Strayhorn’s Framework of College Student’s Sense of Belonging
Note. Adapted from “Analyzing the Short-Term Impact of a Brief Web-Based Intervention on
First-Year Students’ Sense of Belonging at an HBCU: A Quasi-Experimental Study,” by T. L.
Strayhorn, 2003, Innovative Higher Education 48, 1–13 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-021-
09559-5). Copyright, 2003 by Springer.
According to Strayhorn (2019), two types of needs must be met to foster belonging. The
first is latent need, where the student is unaware of the need. The second is expressed need,
characterized by awareness and articulation. Latent needs are challenging to measure for both the

24
student and the institution because the student is unaware of the need (Strayhorn, 2019).
However, institutions can meet students’ needs through service provisions and interventions
(Strayhorn, 2019). Through group membership and the institutional community, students feel
validated, and the perception of value drives students’ emotional and behavioral responses
(Strayhorn, 2019). Integrating students’ psychosocial needs through institutional provisions
benefits students’ adjustment to college. However, as students negotiate academic and social life,
they must manage psychosocial stressors.
Psychosocial Stressors
The college transition is a multi-phase process where students navigate identity
formation, group membership, and institutional engagement. Students often experience
psychosocial stressors as they attempt to balance multiple responsibilities. A sense of belonging
facilitates the transition, enabling students to interact confidently with peers and institutional
agents (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Soria & Stebleton, 2015; Strayhorn, 2019). However, low sense
of belonging contributes to students’ negative academic and personal experiences (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995; Stebleton et al., 2014). As students’ mental and emotional health is affected,
vulnerability to academic and environmental stressors alters the quality of life (Acharya et al.,
2018; Deasy et al., 2014; Holinka, 2015).
Psychosocial and Emotional Repercussions
Deprivation, or low sense of belonging, is counterproductive to students’ psychosocial
and emotional well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Wilczyńska et al., 2015). Deprivation
occurs when students disengage and withdraw from relationships and activities (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995). Partial deprivation includes human connections with only one part of the required
elements for a positive relationship, such as a strong bond and no contact or regular contact

25
without a strong bond (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The students’ perception of deprivation has
psychological consequences that impair their mental health and social and academic life (Elliott
et al., 2005; Flett et al., 2019). Students with low sense of belonging are more vulnerable to
anxiety, depression, and stressors (Flett et al., 2019). Students’ coping skills are compromised,
disrupting daily functioning (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Holinka, 2015).
The American College Health Association (ACHA) Student Survey (2021) reported
students’ top three impediments to academic performance: stress 43.4%, anxiety 34.9%, and
depression 25.4%. As students’ mental health and educational progress deteriorate, they may
employ escape avoidance as an ineffective coping strategy to delay problem resolution (Deasy et
al., 2014; Nuynt et al., 2017). Consequently, students’ problems may be compounded by alcohol
abuse, sexual addiction, self-medication, comfort eating, and suicide (Deasy et al., 2014).
Students are increasingly vulnerable to dropping out if they feel they do not matter to the
institution or its representatives (Moschella & Banyard, 2021).
Student Vulnerability
Student vulnerability is subject to erosion from environmental stressors that affect
cognitive and psychological responses. According to ACHA (2021), 43.4% of students reported
more than average stress levels. Students’ unresolved chronic stress often results in
psychological distress (Deasy et al., 2014). Multiple stressors contributed to students citing
academics, 52%, as the number one issue that was difficult to handle in the 2021 ACHA report.
Environmental factors, such as living accommodations, financial pressures, and degree of social
support, exacerbate the risk of mental health concerns (Deasy et al., 2014). The factors that
increase students’ stress levels are career plans, goals, relationships, and personal achievement

26
(Holinka, 2015). Psychological distress impairs the student’s coping mechanism and problemsolving abilities, leading to isolation (Deasy et al., 2014).
Social Isolation
According to Mellor et al. (2007), “belongingness is not only a precursor to social
connectedness but also a buffer against loneliness” (p. 213). In the absence of belonging,
loneliness and social isolation intensify students’ vulnerability to psychological distress,
compromising students’ cognitive abilities (Leary, 1990; Stillman et al., 2009). Individuals
perceive the inability to form social connections as a failure that affects personal and societal
values. Mellor et al. (2007) found that decreased relationship satisfaction and unfulfilled
belonging led to social isolation. The decline in problem-solving skills and resource acquisition
leads to students’ inability to manage daily stressors (Baumeister et al., 2002; Moor et al., 2018).
Approximately 53% of college students reported feelings of loneliness on the UCLA Loneliness
Scale (ACHA, 2021). According to Leary et al. (1995), the students’ perceived group
membership value decreases as loneliness increases, leading to the erosion of peer, faculty, and
institutional attachments. As students struggle to cope, typical self-preservation responses are
social withdrawal and decreased class participation (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Phirangee &
Malec, 2017). The students’ isolation and lack of online presence contribute to invisibility,
hindering retention, degree attainment, and psychosocial well-being (Phirangee & Malec, 2017).
Othering
Online invisibility or othering compromises students’ relational value (Phirangee &
Malec, 2017). According to Bigatel and Malizia (2017), distance education students are at
“greater risk of isolation and alienation due to the lack of face-to-face contact” (p. 58). Students’
perception of identity invalidation by a dominant group exacerbates othering (Phirangee &

27
Malec, 2017). When othering is present, students’ well-being conflicts with the need to belong,
resulting in identity incongruence, marginalization, and decreased student engagement (Hughes,
2007; Phirangee & Malec, 2017). The repercussions of othering and perceived institutional
apathy affect students’ academic progress and psychosocial development (Museus et al., 2017b;
Phirangee & Malec, 2017). Consequently, students’ sense of belonging and life satisfaction are
impaired, increasing the risk of suicide (Baleria, 2021; Joiner, 2015; Stebleton & Soria, 2014).
Suicidal Risk
Suicidal rumination increases with the loss of psychological and social capital,
exacerbating feelings of worthlessness (Elliott et al., 2005; Joiner, 2005). Social isolation is a
primary suicide risk factor (Joiner, 2005; Van Orden et al., 2010). When perceived social
devaluation and subsequent decline in coping mechanisms occur, individuals consider suicide the
only solution (Joiner, 2015). According to ACHA (2021), 53% of students reported feeling
lonely, while 65.9% reported feeling like they belonged to the institution. Baumeister (1995)
utilized the term ‘cognitive deconstruction’ to identify the gradual loss of cognitive ability, the
loss of fear about corporal finality, and the single focus on suicide.
The interpersonal theory of suicide incorporates three assumptions that preclude suicide
(Joiner, 2005; Van Orden et al., 2010). The first assumption, thwarted belongingness, relates to
the disconnection of relationships and the perceived loss of value within group membership,
leading to loneliness and social isolation (Joiner, 2005; Van Orden et al., 2010). The second
assumption, perceived burdensomeness, amplifies feelings that the individual burdens loved ones
and society (Van Orden et al., 2010). The impression by others that the individual is now a social
and familial liability rather than a contributing member further isolates students (Van Orden et
al., 2010). Finally, repeated exposure to the loss of danger and pain contributes to the student

28
completing the suicidal act (Joiner, 2005). The students’ struggle to regain psychosocial capital
is vital since chronic and unresolved psychosocial stressors often have lasting consequences
(Barratt & Duran, 2021).
Long-Term Consequences
A low sense of belonging can have negative repercussions beyond a student’s college
career in the form of socioeconomic stagnation (Stebleton et al., 2014). Socioeconomic status
(SES) refers to an individual or group’s social standing, including education, income, and
occupation (APA, 2016). SES, culture, education, and employment influence students’ quality of
life (Ribera et al., 2017).
Educational Stratification
Stratified educational systems disproportionally impact minorities through degree
attainment, limited career options, and lower lifetime earnings (Bloch & Mitterle, 2017;
Wightman & Danziger, 2014). According to Johnson (2017), schools that serve students from
low SES tend to perpetuate the cycle of non-college level tracks (Johnson, 2017). Consequently,
navigating higher education is more complex for first-generation minority students who may
work full-time, commute, raise families, or are late college starters (Stebleton et al., 2014).
Educational stratification begins in elementary schools, with apparent differences
between affluent and impoverished neighborhoods in academic rigor, college preparation, and
resource allocation (Johnson, 2017). Affluent students with prior access to college-level
preparatory schools benefit disproportionately from their minority counterparts (An, 2010;
Johnson, 2017). Minority students’ belief in a meritocratic educational system contrasts with the
systemic practice of educational stratification. Institutional control determines admissions
outcomes, regulatory rules regarding resource distribution, and the connectivity of individuals to

29
careers (Grusky, 2014). According to Boland et al. (2018), post-secondary education
“exemplifies the very ideals of social stratification” (p. 1380). A superior educational experience
facilitates the family’s transmission of a college culture to their children (An, 2010; Zarifa et al.,
2018). In contrast, the generational economic stagnation experienced by minorities impacts the
families’ transmission of academic mindsets and career opportunities (An, 2010; Wightman &
Danziger, 2013).
Families with low SES face multiple challenges and often lack the academic knowledge
or financial resources to support their children's education (Wightman and Danziger, 2013).
Limited economic solvency dissuades families from engaging in extra-curricular activities for
their children (An, 2010). The American Psychological Association (APA; 2006) indicated that
low-SES families generally live in neighborhoods that experience segregation. Families contend
with strained educational resources, limited employment opportunities, and unattainable
investments in the form of homeownership (APA, 2006). The strained economic and
geographical limitations experienced by low SES families impacted students’ psychological
well-being, educational preparation, and career options (APA, 2006). As minorities strive for
upward social mobility, they must overcome stratified educational systems that affect economic
viability, college access, and career options (An, 2010; Holinka, 2015).
Vertical and Horizontal Stratification
Minority students often pursue college degrees for financial security and social mobility
(Blackwell & Pinder, 2014). However, vertical and horizontal stratification among bachelorlevel degree earners demonstrates the SES differences between ethnic groups (APA, 2016;
Denice, 2015). Vertical stratification is the correlation between earnings and educational
attainment (Denice, 2015). Horizontal stratification refers to the difference between the type of

30
school attended, career choice, qualitative experience, and the heterogeneity in income among
degree holders (Denice, 2015).
According to the 2022 U.S. Census, Asian students with bachelor-level degrees were
57.4%, White 39.5%, Black 25.4%, Latino 20.4%, and American Indian or Native Alaskan
16.8%. The degree-earning statistics show the disparity between ethnic groups; however, the
disaggregated intra-group data is unavailable. College-educated minorities are subject to racial
stratification in the workforce, often reflected in income (Denice 2015). The discrepancy in
annual earnings between bachelor-level groups is $65,000 for Whites, $69,670 for Asians,
$52,000 for Latinos, and $49,970 for Blacks (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022).
The income differential and limited career options contribute to a lifetime of lower SES for
minorities (Seider et al., 2015). The strained economic and geographical limitations experienced
by low SES students affect their psychological well-being and educational preparation (APA,
2016). Despite the challenges, minority students still perceive education as the pathway to social
mobility and subsequent financial and career stability (Browman et al., 2017). The conceptual
framework examines the relationship between the elements supporting sense of belonging for
post-secondary students in inclusive campus environments.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework in Figure 3 comprised two theories that informed the study on
belonging and teaching presence, and one institutional model addressed inclusive college
cultures. The need to belong theory stipulates that human beings have an innate need to belong,
fulfilled through positive relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The Col model’s teaching
presence element analyzes the structure of online learning through the inter-relationship of

31
cognitive and social presence (Garrison et al., 2000). Finally, the CECE model incorporates the
institutional mission and responsibility in promoting an inclusive college culture.
Figure 3
Conceptual Framework
Note. The chart displays the interaction of the conceptual framework with the three elements that
support students’ sense of belonging. The need to belong theory’s premise is that students have
an innate and universal need to belong that is cultivated by teaching presence in culturally
inclusive post-secondary institutions (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Garrison et al., 2000; Hurtado
& Carter, 1997; Moore 2019; Museus et al., 2017b; Strayhorn, 2019).

32
The conceptual framework adapted explicitly for this study examined the institutional
cycle of cultivating sense of belonging with distance education students (Baumeister & Leary,
1995). The cycle comprised three bi-directional elements: the need to belong theory, teaching
presence, and post-secondary institutions. The first element is the theoretical premise that
students have a universal need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Belonging extends to all
facets of human life. As students transition to and navigate college, whether online or in person,
they must negotiate relationship formation, academic engagement, and psychosocial well-being
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Strayhorn, 2019). Motivation and goalsetting drive relationship formation and group membership, enabling student engagement
(Baumeister & Leary, 1990). Academic and social engagement encourages role validation and
belonging, which promotes institutional connection.
Teaching presence is the second element within the faculty’s scope, supporting students’
social and cognitive presence (Garrison et al., 2000). Faculty members are responsible for
designing and organizing students’ educational experiences, facilitating discourse, and providing
direct instruction (Garrison et al., 2000). The faculty’s disposition for student engagement
encourages student participation and institutional connectivity (Garrison et al., 2000; Museus et
al., 2017a). Student learning and communities of inquiry are also positively influenced by
teaching presence (Garrison et al., 2000). The cycle is dynamic, with sustained commitments by
administrators, faculty, and students to engage in reflective and evaluative practices to ensure
service quality (Museus et al., 2017a).
The third element is the mission of post-secondary institutions to address the challenges
posed by distance education. The first function is to bridge the transactional distance between
students and institutions, which is essential to support online learning (Moore, 2019). The

33
distance gap closes through increased student interaction with peers, the faculty, and the
academic material (Moore, 2019). The second function is for institutions to cultivate sense of
belonging through HIPs designed for a virtual learning environment. The third function is to
foster culturally inclusive environments that support a diverse student body from various SES
backgrounds and academic preparation (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Moore, 2019; Museus et al.,
2017b; Strayhorn, 2019). The final function is the institutional commitment to sustain a
comprehensive teaching presence infrastructure that includes resources, technology, and
professional development. The conceptual framework depicts the connection between the
elements to cultivate sense of belonging in inclusive institutional environments.
Conclusion
The literature review addressed the challenges distance education poses for faculty to
establish teaching presence and cultivate belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Garrison et al.,
2000; Soria & Stebleton, 2015). Faculty modify pedagogy and engagement strategies to cultivate
belonging by bridging the virtual distance gap (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Moore, 2019). The
chapter examined the purpose of belonging as an essential construct to support individuals’ wellbeing through the need to belong theory (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Maslow (1943) included
love and belonging in the hierarchy of needs due to the validation properties of social
connections as individuals strive for self-actualization.
Rendon's theory of validation supported the expansion of belonging in post-secondary
institutions (1989). Consequently, Rendon’s (1989) comprehensive approach stressed the role of
institutional agents to respect student diversity by creating inclusive environments. Museus et al.
(2017b) further expanded the institutional responsibility to establish belonging opportunities
through the CECE model’s cultural relevance and cultural responsiveness. Finally, Strayhorn’s

34
(2019) framework of college students’ sense of belonging incorporated the essential
psychosocial elements and institutional responsiveness to meet students’ belonging needs to
support connectivity and life satisfaction. However, in the absence of belonging, students had to
manage psychosocial stressors affecting their well-being. The literature review examined low
sense of belonging or deprivation, such as online invisibility and physical and mental health
concerns (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Wilczyńska et al., 2015). The repercussions of social
isolation and compromised coping mechanisms provided a lens into students’ challenges when
the perceived relational value decreases (Leary, 1990; Stillman et al., 2009). The conceptual
framework amplified the importance of belonging and teaching presence as essential elements in
cultivating sense of belonging through the need to belong theory and the Col’s model emphasis
on teaching presence in a culturally inclusive environment through the CECE model. The
conceptual framework reflected the dynamic relationship between teaching presence, student
engagement, and culturally relevant institutional practices (Soria & Stebleton, 2015).

35
Chapter Three: Methodology
The chapter provides an overview of the methodology utilized for data collection on
cultivating sense of belonging through teaching presence with post-secondary distance education
students. The faculty contributed to the essential research on their experiences to strengthen
student engagement, which is considered a primary academic success predictor (Astin, 1993;
Lear et al., 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Faculty presence as a mediating element to
countermeasure low sense of belonging or deprivation supports students’ well-being. The chapter
includes the research questions, participant sample and research setting, instrumentation, data
collection and analysis, credibility and trustworthiness, ethical considerations, and the
researcher’s positionality with limitations and delimitations.
Research Questions
The study examined the role of teaching presence in cultivating students’ belonging and
well-being, including institutional support to promote teaching presence (Garrison et al., 2000;
Peacock et al., 2020). The nature and quality of the student and faculty relationships are essential
factors for supporting online visibility and institutional connectivity (Garrison et al., 2000;
Museus et al., 2017b; Peacock et al., 2020). The narrative data illustrated the faculty’s personal
meaning-making and individual interpretations, part of a constructivist worldview approach
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The findings correlated to the research on the faculty’s role as a
moderating element in student success (Hurtado et al., 2015; Museus et al., 2017b).
Three research questions guided this study:
1. What sense of belonging strategies are utilized by higher education online
instructors within the community of inquiry model’s teaching presence?

36
2. What are the higher education online instructor’s experiences on how teaching
presence cultivates students’ sense of belonging and well-being?
3. How do higher education institutions support and promote online instructors’
teaching presence?
Participant Sample
Ten post-secondary distance education faculty participated in the purposeful, nonprobability selection sample (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The faculty
were from 2- and 4-year accredited post-secondary institutions and taught lower-division
courses. The ethnically diverse faculty met the criteria of being full-time and having more than
one year of online teaching experience. Since there were no restrictions on the subject matter, the
range of lower-division subjects demonstrated the faculty’s depth of teaching presence. The first
participants were recruited via email from a distance education program, followed by
convenience sampling (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Research Setting
The research setting included 2- and 4-year nationwide public institutions in the United
States. The community colleges offer certificates, associate of arts or science, and transfer
degrees with available financial aid for qualifying students. Students can complete vocational
programs or work on lower-division coursework in preparation for transfer to a 4-year university
to complete a bachelor’s degree. Students can complete program and degree options in-person,
entirely online, or as a hybrid option. The typical student body is ethnically diverse, ranging from
recent high school graduates to retirees. Students commute and manage multiple responsibilities
like employment, family, and school.

37
Four-year public universities offer lower and upper-division courses, including postgraduate. Students’ bachelor’s degree completion can be done in-person, online, or as a hybrid
option. Students can start at the university from high school or transfer as juniors with 60+ units
from a community college. Students typically attend school full-time, 12 units or more, and may
work with a combination of on and off-campus living. Financial aid is available with optional
loans, work-study, or paid internships.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation included a semi-structured questionnaire with seven demographic
questions and 11 interview questions conducted via Zoom due to the COVID-19 pandemic
restrictions. One advantage of synchronous interviews was the approximation of face-to-face
contact that allowed for follow-up questions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The second Zoom
advantage was the interview recording feasibility following the participants’ permission to
generate a transcript (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The researcher utilized demographic
questions to inquire about the faculty’s subject areas, teaching experience in-person and online,
and ethnicity. The survey included two additional questions about the faculty’s notion of sense of
belonging as it relates to college students and their opinions regarding which institutional agents
they considered to have a higher degree of participation in cultivating sense of belonging.
Data Collection
The researcher scheduled the faculty interviews via Zoom based on the participants’ time
preferences. The faculty’s consent to record was secured before the interview. The researcher
reminded participants of their right to terminate the interview at any time. The interview lasted
between 45 and 60 minutes, reflecting the faculty’s contributions. The researcher protected the
participants’ anonymity by assigning pseudonyms. The audio recordings and transcripts were

38
secured through USC’s Google Drive cloud with a secure password and non-identifying
participant information.
Data Analysis
The researcher reviewed the interview transcripts and clarified the participants’
information for accuracy. The transcripts were coded through Atlas.ti and saved anonymously.
The researcher utilized a priori and in vivo codes to organize the related themes and sub-themes
(Creswell and Creswell, 2018). A category for “other findings” and sub-themes was created
since the faculty discussed related COVID-19 themes and the effect on distance education.
Finally, the researcher highlighted the organized themes to narrate the participants’ teaching
presence experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
The researcher’s ethics influence the credibility and trustworthiness of the research data
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The study protocols and the data are part of credibility and can be
affected depending on the researcher’s process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The study utilized
one data collection method; however, the alignment was made with the research questions and
the data collection (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher used respondent validation to ensure
credibility by consulting members’ responses for accuracy (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Rather
than making assumptions in statements made by faculty, the researcher used clarifying questions.
For example, when Demi used the term “familia academica [academic family],” the researcher’s
initial understanding differed from the intended meaning. Data engagement was another method
to ensure credibility, which led to understanding teaching presence and belonging through data
saturation with the 10 participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

39
To ensure the study’s credibility, the researcher establishes trustworthiness through the
research methods and ethical actions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The risk to participants was
minimized through transparent communication regarding the purpose of the study and the
methodology. The researcher built trust by allowing participants to end the interview at any
point, respecting the scheduled timeframe, and safeguarding confidentiality. The researcher
further established trustworthiness by recognizing and validating the faculty’s professional
expertise and teaching presence strategies.
Ethical Considerations
The study adhered to USC’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) ethical guidelines. The
participants received the informed consent to participate in advance via email, along with
confirmation of the Zoom appointment. The primary goal of the researcher and IRB was to
protect the rights of the participants and ensure confidentiality. The researcher secured
participants’ permission to record and informed them of the confidential handling of records,
data storage, and security procedures. The participants received a $15 gift card for their study
participation. Finally, the researcher treated participants ethically and communicated
transparently regarding the purpose of the study and the researcher’s positionality (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The Researcher
My positionality derives from my dual roles as a student and professional. My interest in
the study stemmed from being a distance education doctoral candidate and my professional role
as counseling faculty, providing academic advising to students and teaching online. My expertise
was utilized as a point of reference to solicit information through the flexibility of the semistructured interview. As a Latina, my expertise in equity, diversity, and inclusion comes from a

40
personal and professional viewpoint. The stories of the Latinx faculty who experienced low
sense of belonging were familiar and relatable experiences. I informed participants of my similar
professional background, which provided a point of reference and trust. I utilized self-awareness
and reflection to minimize exchanging my professional experiences to influence participant
responses. I identified with the faculty’s spirit of perseverance in overcoming challenges. Since I
was aware of the shared connections and worldview with the participants, I was mindful of
retaining the roles of listener and facilitator.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations and delimitations are inherent in research studies (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The researcher must acknowledge and include them in the study's narrative to enhance a
transparent process. Limitations are conditions outside the researcher’s control (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The researcher acknowledged three limitations to the study. The first limitation
was interviewing via Zoom rather than in-person due to the COVID-19 restrictions and the
participants’ location. However, the natural field setting for online faculty is through Zoom or
similar technology, which may ameliorate this limitation (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The
second limitation was the 10-participant sample size due to the condensed dissertation timeframe
and data saturation. The sample size means the study findings are specific to experienced fulltime, distance education faculty. The final limitation was that the researcher’s professional role
was similar to the faculty’s, which may bias responses (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The
researcher discussed the role with participants, which provided a point of reference and expanded
the depth and breadth of the interview.
Delimitations are the researcher’s decisions that influence the study (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). A primary delimitation was the faculty participation from 2 and 4-year

41
institutions versus one type of institution. Two-year public institutions provide associate degrees
and prepare students to transfer to 4-year universities where students complete a bachelor’s
degree. However, since the study centered on distance education and teaching presence versus
the institutional degree requirements, the data reflected the experiences of a similar participant
sample group. Another delimitation was the focus on full-time faculty with distance education
experience, which limited the study findings to this population.

42
Chapter Four: Findings
The study examined the role of teaching presence in cultivating sense of belonging with
post-secondary distance education students. The need to belong theory stipulates that belonging
is innate and universal (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Students are driven to pursue positive
relationships with temporal continuity to support purpose and relational value (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995; Museus et al., 2017b; Strayhorn, 2019). As students transition to higher education,
social connections become an essential source of validation to minimize the adverse effects of
low sense of belonging or deprivation (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Garrison et al., 2000;
Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2018; Rolim et al., 2019).
Teaching presence mediates the repercussions of deprivation through the faculty-student
relationship (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Garrison et al., 2000). The teaching presence strategies
cultivate sense of belonging to retain students’ online visibility, contribute to their well-being,
and support academic progress (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Bolliger & Halupa, 2018; Garrison
et al., 2000; Phirangee & Malec, 2017; Thomas et al., 2014). The findings are discussed in
alignment with the need to belong theory, the Col model’s teaching presence element, and the
CECE model for culturally inclusive environments.
Three research questions guided the study:
1. What sense of belonging strategies are utilized by higher education online instruction
within the community of inquiry model’s teaching presence?
2. What are the higher education online instructor’s experiences on how teaching
presence cultivates students’ sense of belonging and well-being?
3. How do higher education institutions support and promote online instructors’
teaching presence?

43
Participants
The researcher applied a qualitative phenomenological methodology through semistructured interviews via Zoom. The 10 post-secondary full-time distance education faculty were
from 2- and 4-year institutions, as shown in Table 1. The faculty’s introductory paragraph
included the response to the demographic question: “What is your notion regarding a definition
of sense of belonging as it relates to college students?” The faculty’s perspective on teaching
presence and belonging reflected the essential functions of student engagement.
Table 1
Participant Demographics
Participant
pseudonym
Sex Ethnicity
(self-identified)
Years
teaching
Years
teaching
online
Years at
current
institution
Alex M Latino 13 11 8
Brian M Caucasian 27 21 21
Chloe F Caucasian 23 16 10
Demi F Latina 23 5 8
Eli M African American 6 3 4
Faith F Caucasian 23 23 15
Gabe M Hispanic 7 7 7
Hana F Caucasian 13 5 13
Ivy F Hispanic 14 2 14
Julian M Latino 35 20 10
Note. The table displays the participants’ demographic information, including personal
identification as Hispanic or Latinx. The years of instructional experience and years teaching
online are included. The final column shows the faculty’s institutional tenure.

44
Alex
“Belonging is parallel to connectedness. How am I connected with the school? How am I
connected with the programs? How am I connected with education, and ultimately, how do I
matter?”
Alex credits collaboration as essential to everything he does as a community college
faculty member. Designing a collaborative learning environment fosters a trusting faculty-faculty
relationship, facilitating comfortable communication. Alex’s stories when he was a freshman
were relatable to students and made him approachable, “I wished I had more connections, more
connectedness. I wished I mattered.” Alex believes “cultivating a sense of belonging depends on
the faculty’s personality and strategies.” He ensures students feel they belong in the environment
he designs. Alex stated, “A collaborative environment is my philosophy and strategy.” Alex
practices and advocates for diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Brian
“Students feel wanted, and you want to have them.”
Brian’s notion of a sense of belonging for college students is a simple yet powerful
statement reflecting the premise that the need to belong is innate and a motivating influence.
Brian forms deep connections with students to support their personal, academic, and career
goals. Knowing his students well helps Brian “dive” into personalizing recommendation letters.
Brian believes anyone can write a letter of recommendation indicating the GPA and number of
units; however, “you cannot pull the student’s personality off the transcript.” Brian’s driving
force behind utilizing humanistic strategies is to provide students with the resources and support
unavailable to him as a student. Brian plays a critical role in policy and professional development
at his institution.

45
Chloe
The first definition by Chloe related to being part of a community: “Students feel like the
class values their ideas and their contribution.” The second definition was, “Within the campus,
students might feel they belong in college and have the identity of being a college student.”
Chloe’s pedagogical emphasis on best practices to implement teaching presence was
embedded within her degree. Chloe’s expertise in building student communities serves a dual
purpose: to have students identify with and belong to the class and to structure learning
strategies. Student participation increased due to the positive student response to the streamlined
structure, with self-contained modules and clear instructions. While acknowledging
technological benefits, Chloe prefers simplicity to maximize student access, equity, and utility.
Chloe considers sense of belonging essential for all students, particularly students of color. Chloe
said the difference between a student passing or failing is knowing an institutional agent cares
for them. Chloe is committed to students’ well-being and personalizing interventions.
Demi
“My notion of sense of belonging is you want to be welcomed and feel you belong. You
are part of this learning journey and creating a familia academica [academic family].”
Demi encourages students to find connections through the “familia academica,” which
she defines as the faculty’s diverse roles in supporting students. Faculty’s involvement in nonacademic activities sends validating messages to students, who improve course attendance. As
students feel seen and heard, their motivation and confidence increase. Demi believes in
flexibility and assignment modification to mitigate students’ home learning challenges. Demi
believes everybody wants to belong; however, everyone experiences belonging differently

46
depending on their culture. Demi is committed to student equity and inclusion and advocates for
Latino issues in higher education.
Eli
“Sense of belonging is a belief that you [student] contribute while at that institution.”
Eli is known for using creative learning strategies. Students produced a short music parity
assignment on a course topic, with pre-selected music genres ranging from Disney and Western
to Reggaeton. The assignment enabled peer-to-peer and student-faculty engagement while
incorporating subject knowledge and culture. Eli considers his small class size a plus in nurturing
belonging. Knowing students’ aspirations enables Eli to connect with students while supporting
them in accomplishing their goals.
Eli relies on institutional resources to ensure students can access an extended network. Eli
promotes the “Each One, Teach One” concept program, where students are encouraged to pay
forward what they learn. Eli’s purpose is to foster a culture of peer support and community.
Faith
“Sense of belonging is the thematic analysis of humanization, connectedness, keeping it
real, and the notion of belonging as receiving honest, fair, and timely feedback.”
Faith’s passion for studying belonging included institutional professional development
and project leadership. During the COVID-19 pandemic, faculty were unprepared to transition to
distance education; however, Faith’s expertise supported the faculty’s skill set and improved
course delivery. The institution strongly emphasizes faculty evaluations, and Faith consistently
achieves positive outcomes due to being student-centered. Faith’s experience is an invaluable
institutional resource. Faith is intentional about connecting with students’ personal life events.
Faith’s humanistic practices include writing a letter to the students at the end of the semester

47
with “something that each student said every week.” Students’ favorable responses to the letter
have validating elements. Faith believes that belonging is experienced differently by various
ethnic groups, and faculty should apply specific strategies to meet their needs.
Gabe
“You need a solid foundation, and education gives you that, even if you lose your job.”
Gabe shares with his students that his educational journey was laden with failure since he
was dismissed twice from college. Gabe’s experiences characterize him as a faculty who utilizes
personal storytelling to identify and connect with students. Gabe opposes the hierarchical
faculty-to-student relationship. Instead, he encourages students to question faculty due to the
opportunity for mutual growth. Gabe believes that as students’ confidence grows, so does their
degree of engagement.
Gabe believes in the cross-discipline approach; the more informed he is, the more his
students will benefit. The willingness to provide students with additional resources helps
strengthen the faculty-student relationship. Gabe believes “having that presence of
communication online” sends a powerful message to support students’ mental health, build trust,
and manage stress. Accordingly, Gabe provides his cell number to students and promptly replies
to minimize anxiety.
Hana
“They need to feel like they have a sense of ownership and that it is their class.”
Hana utilizes her experience as a teen mom as an effective teaching tool for connecting
with students. The struggles of raising a child when she was a student are included in the course
themes. Hana’s willingness to share her story allows the students the space to explore
challenging personal topics. By validating students’ lived experiences, Hana supports their sense

48
of self. Open communication contributes to class ownership, where students actively participate
in their success. Due to the reflective course content, “some students changed their majors or
made significant life changes.” Before the COVID-19 pandemic, Hana only taught in-person
classes. Hana proactively pursued certification and professional development while relying on
her colleagues’ networks to overcome online teaching challenges.
Ivy
As we returned to school, students sought community in a larger rather than a smaller
individual sense. This means we want to integrate both aspects for students with the
balance individually, programmatically, and campus-wide. Those are the three different
places where you need to create that sense of belonging for traditional and online
students.
Ivy believes that “people bring their full selves to class.” Ivy shares personal stories while
interacting with the material to create an authentic experience. Through empathy and
understanding, Ivy helped students overcome challenges. As a result of a welcoming
environment, students felt comfortable building a supportive online community. Ivy said, “I
create multiple on-ramps for engagement” through ongoing welcoming messages since students
respond at different times. Ivy’s experience in distance education and continued subject-matter
research are vital to the institutions’ success in virtual learning.
Julian
“My notion of sense belonging as it relates to college students is making connections
with students.”
Julian identifies as an educational servant whose primary role is building student
connections to support all aspects of their academic journey. Julian shares his cell number with

49
students and answers at different hours to address academic and non-academic concerns. Julian
believes belongingness and student retention improve if students know he cares and is willing to
support them. The faculty-student relationship is strengthened as Julian shares his experiences
and gets to know his students. Julian has a history of student equity and advocacy and mentoring
faculty. Julian understands the importance of providing an academic path and vision for
underserved students who do not have the financial means to attend college.
Findings: Research Question 1
The three primary themes and related sub-themes addressed question one, including
faculty attributes, student-centered approaches, and communication presence. In addition, faculty
attempted to mitigate the four emergent themes that challenged sense of belonging: course
disengagement, personalizing virtual students, technology access, and the student’s home
environment.
Faculty Attributes
The study found that faculty attributes were essential in establishing sense of belonging
strategies through teaching presence. Students responded favorably to the faculty’s attributes of
intentionality, authenticity and storytelling, and empathy and compassion.
Intentionality
Faculty’s strategies were intentional to sustain student engagement and facilitate
community building and course progression. Alex’s messaging system was “intentional to let the
students know that I am here, and you can talk to me.” Alex incorporated multiple access points,
including email, office appointments, and cell phones. Similarly, Gabe opened the Canvas course
early, “Having that online presence before the semester begins helps offer an optional Zoom

50
meeting with extra credit.” Faculty’s strategies to establish an early online teaching presence
were attempts at reaching diverse learners.
Faith believed the “answer to overcoming the challenges of meeting the needs of
different learners is intentionality.” Faculty acknowledged that the benefits of intentionality came
with an increased workload. Faith best summarized the faculty’s commitment, “It is
intentionality. It makes a difference. It takes time. It takes energy, and you can either choose to
do it or not to do it.” In addition to faculty’s intentional actions to connect with students,
storytelling was essential to fostering relationships.
Authenticity and Storytelling
Faculty considered authenticity essential in strengthening faculty-student relationships.
Ivy believed “teaching is ephemeral” due to course length and time. Making connections was a
priority, “I make sure that I bring my authentic self and share details about myself, how I interact
with the materials, and how I interpret that from an academic and application lens.” Ivy
indicated, “Students tend to step up once I demonstrate my investment.” Authenticity enables
students to identify faculty as a ‘real person’ and are more likely to perceive faculty as
accessible. Hana said, “Students feel that I am reachable and real.” Authenticity supports
students’ sense of belonging, as described by Alex’s statement, “Just by being personable and
humanistic, students can feel that connection. I do belong in this class. I do belong at this school.
I do belong in this degree or field.” Gabe, Hana, Chloe, Eli, Demi, Faith, Julian, and Brian also
brought their authentic selves to class through personal stories.
Storytelling was utilized as a point of connection with students and as a teaching tool.
There is an inherent vulnerability in sharing your personal story, even for well-intended
purposes. However, faculty recognized that their life experiences significantly influenced

51
students personally and academically. As students related to Gabe’s story of academic dismissal
due to a 1.1 GPA, he overcame his embarrassment. Gabe said, “Students said thanks for sharing.
I appreciate it because I am second-guessing myself if I should be here or if I am smart enough.”
The faculty became more relatable and approachable as students identified with the stories. Eli
relied on storytelling throughout the semester to “get to know the person, not just superficially
but in more detail.” Hana stated, “Letting students know about me and my story allows them to
see that I am just like them and approachable.”
According to Chloe, the faculty’s willingness to use storytelling as a relationship-building
and instruction tool demonstrated that “The faculty’s presence is key to making students feel you
care about them.” Julian’s statement reflected the faculty’s philosophy, “The most important
strategy I use every time in building that connection with the students is letting them know the
instructor.” Brian best summarized the faculty’s goal, “They know you. You know them. They
know they are not in it alone.” Students responded positively to the faculty’s empathetic and
compassionate strategies.
Empathy and Compassion
The faculty’s empathetic and compassionate belonging strategies supported students’
interpersonal and academic progress. Faculty emphasized the need to understand students’ lived
experiences and their influence on academic progress. Eli summarized teaching presence by
saying, “Presence shows my compassion and that I care. It causes the students to think about
compassion, caring about the subject matter and success, not just checking off the box.” Ivy bestdescribed faculty’s flexibility in accommodating students’ life circumstances, “It is taking
people’s lived experiences and understanding, recognizing, paying attention to them, and then
moving forward with them.” Through compassionate interventions that addressed individual

52
differences, the faculty communicated student acceptance to help the student through the course.
Faculty agreed with Ivy’s statement, “There needs to be more grace and compassion for that
particular group of students’ time restraints.” The faculty’s empathetic interventions resonated
with students to strengthen connections.
The faculty’s interest in the students’ personal lives facilitated the faculty-student
relationship. Faith indicated, “Students want to know that faculty are involved in their weekly
happenings.” Students’ lives within and outside the course were meaningful for Brian, Alex,
Hana, Julian, Faith, Eli, Demi, and Gabe. For example, Faith listened to every student’s
introduction and “found out M is a developer, so I intentionally speak to that throughout the
semester, showing empathy and communication.” Gabe showed compassion by identifying with
and understanding students’ similar life experiences. Gabe said, “I like being open to letting
them know I have been in your seat. I struggled and did not think I would get higher education.”
Julian said, “Once you create a relationship with students, they feel they belong. However, you
must extend yourself. I believe that education is not a job; it is a calling. Once you build that
rapport, it stays there.” The faculty’s empathetic and compassionate behavior towards students
proved life-changing and reflected the faculty’s student-centered philosophy.
Student-Centered Approaches
Faculty’s intentional student-centered approaches focused on collaborative environments,
course design, digital competency, and community building.
Collaborative Environments
Faculty created inclusive and safe collaborative environments for learning, selfexpression, and academic growth. Alex said, “I adopt a collaborative learning environment
strategy to support diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Alex said a collaborative environment

53
allowed him to share a “wealth of information” with students since “it allows them to feel open
and comfortable communicating with me.” Hana’s strategy for creating a safe learning space is
empowering students in the class. Hana said, “Students need to feel they have ownership of their
online classroom and the environment around them.” Class ownership included student input for
projects and course expectations, which supported Hana’s student partnerships.
Ivy’s approach was to form student alliances at the start of the course, “I am a big fan of
a shared-created syllabus that, as a group, you decide what your standards are and how this will
work. I get engagement from the beginning because students are more apt to adhere to it.” Eli’s
collaborative approach served a dual purpose: “I start building an online community by giving
them a take-home exam to work in groups. They have time to meet, share ideas, and discuss the
subject.” Eli’s students were surprised to have the opportunity to collaborate on a take-home
exam and actively engaged with each other to complete it. The provision of student choice and
decision-making contributed to the collaborative environment practiced by Brian, Demi, Gabe,
Faith, and Chloe. Faculty focused on course design as a common strategy to cultivate belonging.
Course Design
Faculty designed the coursework in a concise and accessible format to facilitate students’
course progression. Faith said, “One thing we do as influential educators is we constantly think
of UDL [universal design for learning] in everything.” Faith discussed that the educator’s job
was to “meet the needs of all learners all the time; however, that is challenging.” According to
Faith, UDL supported course design through humanization, communication, and technologies.
Ivy added, “I have found that by doing less in a class, less busy work, and stripping it down to
the essence of the class, we have more engagement instead of more things to check off.”
According to Chloe, “One thing that works well is my course design. My modules are concise. If

54
students see something on their calendar or to-do list, they will click on the assignment and get
the instructions. I want everything to be self-contained.”
Course design approaches personalized course introductions, welcoming syllabi, and
degree and type of feedback. Demi opted for a personal video introduction rather than
immediately introducing students to the course material. Demi said, “I ensure they see me as a
person since they will lose my personality if I start giving them work.” Demi found that
humanizing the course facilitated student connections since “videos are essential to show the
personal parts of me, such as my likes and dislikes.” Brian used a similar approach to Demi with
the syllabus by streamlining it with essential class information such as, “What are we supposed
to learn in this class? How are we going to learn in this class?” Brian “removed the standard
headers of learning outcomes and mandatory resources” and included multiple points of contact
in his “welcoming syllabus.” Brian concurred with Demi’s statement that students should
“slowly get into the syllabus by showing students how to be successful in the class.”
Eli, Alex, and Faith utilized a course design strategy to address the degree and type of
assignment feedback. For example, the length of feedback Gabe provided related to the student’s
subject knowledge, “A student’s feedback is pretty straightforward, positive. Whereas a student
needing more feedback is longer and more constructive.” Gabe utilized the feedback data to
assess students’ needs and provide support. Brian personalized student feedback through videos.
Brian said, “I use the videos to review assignments and provide feedback on the areas they did
well and areas of improvement.” Student engagement improved as faculty personalized course
design and simplified technology to facilitate access.

55
Digital Competency
Faculty utilized various technologies designed for students’ learning preferences. Ivy
said, “I combine communication streams, such as text, video, and audio, to allow for variety and
how students wish to consume information.” Chloe and Brian also utilized videos for diverse
teaching purposes and student connection. Brian’s video usage included problem-solving and
assignment description, “I post exit tickets, which are questions. What is hanging you up? And
how long have you been working on this problem? I solve the problems posted by students, then
send an announcement for review.”
Alex discussed the importance of utilizing diverse technology to mitigate accessibility
challenges. Alex said, “I utilize the Canvas built-in programs to display subject matter and media
tools. I use FaceTime and Teams and provide options for students to meet.” Gabe, Eli, Brian,
Julian, Hana, and Demi agreed with Faith’s practice: “I intentionally use a different technology
every week, whether it is Flip Grid or Slido, or just a table format or a media tool or their cell
phone.” Hana said, “Technology promotes teaching presence since we offer something new
every semester.” Faculty also utilized technology to improve students’ learning skills. For
example, Faith said, “I use the technology flip for student introductions. I ask about their favorite
way to learn instead of just having them tell me about themselves, and I use the information to
support them.” Faculty also utilized technology to build communities.
Community Building
Faculty built online communities to support peer-peer relationships. The activities
increased the faculty’s knowledge of their students to target assignments and services through
question-and-answer hubs, non-traditional discussion boards, and resource and referral
processes. Gabe and Hana created a peer-peer question-and-answer centralized page, with

56
faculty oversight to ensure subject accuracy. Through the Question Café, Gabe told students,
“Instead of asking me a question, you have an opportunity to bring in that culture within studentto-student interaction.” Hana’s Canvas parking lot page had a lot of supportive student traffic.
Hana told her students, “If somebody does not answer you or I see you are being led in the
wrong direction, I will intervene.” Faculty’s creative approaches to elicit participation were also
evident in the discussion boards.
The faculty humanized the functionality of discussion boards by embedding their image
and voice in video recordings. Demi said, “Since the pandemic [COVID-19], I implemented the
discussions with an oral prompt option, which helped build community. Students must reply to at
least two peers to converse, and communication grows.” Eli reinvented the discussion boards for
a video-recorded student response, “I think that students get a little more engaged.” Alex, Gabe,
Hana, and Ivy preferred video discussion replies but accepted written ones, allowing students to
choose. Faith’s students submitted introduction videos from their place of employment. Faith
said, “I had a student who is a nurse at Warner Brothers introduce herself on the set so that
humanizes her and Bugs Bunny. How cool is that? Students see each other doing motivational
videos as a way to humanize yourself.” Consequently, students’ online visibility increased
through video assignments. Faculty ensure teaching presence through communication to
maintain student engagement.
Communication Presence
The faculty described communication presence in terms of timely dialogue and grading
response times. Faculty validate students’ academic and personal efforts by addressing their
needs to minimize the anxiety and stress of waiting for faculty feedback.

57
Prompt Dialogue
The asynchronous nature of distance education and atypical student schedules create
communication lapses, which faculty attempted to minimize through prompt response times.
Faculty considered timely communication essential to establish an online teaching presence.
Gabe said, “The students’ comfort level is what I try to achieve with my communication.” The
faculty response time ranged from immediate to 24 hours, with only Hana and Ivy having a 48-
hour response time during weekends. To increase faculty accessibility, several faculty members,
such as Alex, Demi, Eli, Brian, and Gabe, shared their cell numbers with students.
Alex said, “As a faculty member teaching online, you must be willing to work on a 24-
hour system because some of your students are on that system, morning, evening, and weekend.”
Eli, Gabe, and Alex believe students benefit academically by having their questions answered
promptly. Julian’s statement summarized the faculty’s purpose for sharing the cell number, “I am
an educational servant. I get paid to serve. If you text me any time of the day, I will help you.”
Although most faculty were open regarding availability and response times, others had
parameters, such as days and times. Alex, Demi, and Brian shared Eli’s sentiment, “The feeling
that they can contact me gives them that sense of presence.” Gabe said, “I have good
communication with my students, and the connection gives them a sense of belonging.” Faculty
also demonstrated communication presence through grading.
Grading Presence
Timely grading had validation properties for students who felt faculty recognized their
time and effort. According to Faith, grading presence “includes assigning the grade and using the
media button or emojis that is humanization.” Given the absence of visual cues in a virtual
environment, faculty provided immediate feedback to let students know they were paying

58
attention. Gabe said, “Speaking from the student’s perspective, the stress and anxiety, especially
those first few weeks, you want to see how the instructor grades.” The faculty’s consistent
grading practice supports student well-being and relationship building. Nonetheless, faculty
acknowledged challenges to sense of belonging strategies and attempted to overcome them.
Challenges to Fostering Sense of Belonging
The challenges experienced by faculty to foster sense of belonging in a virtual
environment included course disengagement, personalizing virtual students, technology access,
and the students’ home environment.
Course Disengagement
Faculty identified course disengagement as a challenge to fostering sense of belonging.
Hana said, “The biggest problem with keeping the online community is reaching out to students
who fall off the grid, come back, and fall off the grid again.” Gabe shared a similar experience,
“It is hard for me to engage with them when they are not responding to an email or message. So
that is a fine line. I cannot be overbearing.” Eli’s experience dealt with engaging students at the
beginning of the semester. Eli said, “There are a few students that, if you do not catch them early
enough, you will lose them almost immediately. I have a group of them that will not participate.”
However, faculty made multiple attempts to engage students.
To overcome the challenge of course disengagement, faculty relied on teaching presence
strategies to keep students from dropping or failing the course. For example, Gabe, Hana, Demi,
and Eli did early student outreach. Gabe said, “I am going to bring them back as soon as possible
because one of the hardest emails to send out is I am sorry it is too late at this point.” Eli stated
that students often found it challenging to return to class since “They do not feel they belong.
Then they are intimidated and will pull back or fall behind.” Eli encouraged students individually

59
and as a group to continue with the course. Eli said, “I try to address it directly and tell the
students to stay and give the class a chance.” For a group intervention, Eli said, “I give them
discussion questions that make them think about the response as a group.” Outreach throughout
the semester was a common strategy for Demi, Ivy, Brian, and Chloe to disrupt students from
working in silos.
Personalizing Virtual Students
A challenge faculty had to overcome was personalizing students. The lack of face-to-face
contact led some students to view distance education as a solitary pursuit. For example, Brian
said, “Because many students see online as a solitary pursuit, they think that because they are
behind the computer, they are not to be bothered.” In addition, Brian said, “There are also the
type of introverted people who prefer to be online.” Ivy questioned the possible source of the
solitary pursuit, “Was it an isolating experience because that experience in teaching was isolating
or because life was isolating and that was a part of life at the time [COVID-19 pandemic]?”
According to Chloe, “Because I do not know students as people and only see their ID number, it
is difficult to put a personality with their name, get a sense of how they are feeling, or gauge how
they may be struggling.”
Increasing student visibility was a common strategy for minimizing feelings of isolation.
Brian said, “I may talk to them about their career or something we may have in common.” As
Brian found shared interests to form student connections, Gabe utilized the institutional network
for referrals, “Starfish [institutional advising tool] has been beneficial because you play as a
team. I do what I can. Then, I contact the campus resources when I need extra support.” Hana’s
approach was to “partner with students in their education since students need to feel safe and
respected.” Hana said students were responsive to her trust-building efforts. Hana said,

60
“Generally, faculty provide students with an honest and safe environment where students trust
the teacher will not pull the rug out from under them.” Another challenge to cultivate sense of
belonging was technology.
Technology Access
The faculty noted that technology access affected student visibility and course
completion. Alex observed that students’ lack of access to programs was due to low bandwidth
or computer capacity. Alex’s statement summarized the technological challenges that Julian,
Gabe, Chloe, and Hana shared, “Students’ progress is affected when they do not have access to
the internet, or the internet is not strong enough, or the technology on the laptop or phone is
inadequate.” In Julian’s experience, slow internet speeds affected course completion,
“Technology is key because, in many communities, the internet is slow and discouraging for
students.” Julian addressed the connectivity issue through advocacy, “We overcame the
challenge by calling the governor to tell them they skipped our towns. They put in high-speed
fiber internet, and it is working.” Knowing how to use technology presented another challenge
once students had access to technology.
Students need to learn how to use technology to meet the course requirements. According
to Ivy, “We should not assume that because students are on their phones, they know how to learn
online. That is a skill we need to teach students.” According to Faith, as students learn to
navigate distance education, faculty must recognize “the challenge that technology may work for
one student but may not work for another student.” Consequently, a common challenge for
students was access to institutional programs and applications. Alex said, “Some of my pet
peeves are that we [institution] provide students with online environments, but we do not provide

61
them with supportive technology.” Distance education courses rely on functional and accessible
technology; however, connectivity or usage problems ultimately affect success and retention.
The faculty’s responses to technological challenges ranged from providing programmatic
options to simplifying access. For example, Alex’s message to students read, “If Canvas is not
working for you or if you do not have or cannot connect to a Zoom account, then let’s use
FaceTime or Teams. I provide additional options for students to meet.” Chloe kept the use of
applications to a minimum for students, “I do not use a lot of technology. It may be too much of
a cognitive load for students. I also worry that it may be an issue if their devices do not support
it.” The students’ technological challenges were further compounded by their environment.
Home Environment
Learning disruptions in the students’ home environment prompted faculty to modify
pedagogy, as Eli, Brian, Hana, and Ivy expressed. For example, Demi’s student was a single
parent who completed her assignments after her toddler fell asleep. The student recorded her
video submissions by whispering to keep her child asleep, resulting in a barely audible video.
Once Demi became aware of the student’s living situation, she modified the assignment to
include children-related activities. Demi’s student successfully completed the assignments while
learning alongside her child. Demi said, “The student had no control over her environment,
which was stressful. That is where you must pivot and accept that you cannot control the home
environment. However, faculty can find alternatives to make assignments work.”
Julian’s task in working with first-generation students was to help meet the academic
demands in a non-traditional environment. Students required support in adopting learning
techniques to increase their capacity to manage online courses. Julian said, “By giving students
the confidence that they belong and can go to college, they have a different personality.” While

62
faculty can address some at-home learning disruptions, the students’ diverse environments were
ultimately beyond faculty control.
Summary: Research Question 1
Three primary themes and related sub-themes addressed question one: faculty attributes,
student-centered approaches, and communication presence. Intentionality was at the core of
every faculty decision to establish sense of belonging strategies. Faculty acknowledged the
increased workload required for student engagement, course progression, and community
building. However, the faculty stated that the extra effort was worthwhile due to students’
responsiveness to the teaching presence strategies, inclusive of faculty attributes, studentcentered approaches, and communication presence. Faculty implemented solutions within their
purview to address the challenges of course disengagement, technology, and home environment
disruptions through early outreach interventions, providing alternative digital access, and
assignment modifications. In addition, faculty attempted to mitigate the four emergent themes to
the challenges of sense of belonging strategies: course disengagement, personalizing virtual
students, technology access, and the student’s home environment.
Findings: Research Question 2
Three emergent categories answered question two: diversified faculty roles, project and
team-based learning, and networking and referral. The findings addressed the benefits of
belonging for students’ well-being and ineffective teaching presence strategies.
Diversified Faculty Roles
Faculty expanded teaching presence beyond the virtual classroom by incorporating
diverse roles to support students’ need to belong. For example, Demi’s “Familia academica is
stepping in beyond the instructor’s role in class, sometimes becoming a mentor, and being more

63
present in the students’ environment.” Demi provided alternative student learning opportunities
through campus and community events and interacted with students in a fun and relaxed
environment. According to Demi, “Students are more likely to attend a campus or community
event if I invite them. By maintaining presence and that connection from the beginning, students
participated in an exhibition and Día de Los Muertos [Day of the Dead].” Demi’s public
acknowledgment of her students supported their sense of belonging and increased class
participation.
Gabe concurred with the faculty role extension, “As faculty, we should not say this is not
my area, and it comes down to passion and the discipline of the faculty.” Gabe added, “Are we
here to meet our contractual obligations, or are we here to ensure our students are successful?
Can we do both? Absolutely.” Hana, Brian, Eli, Julian, and Chloe agreed with Gabe that faculty
can fulfill the dual functions. For example, Alex’s roles were as a “classroom mentor and a
guidance counselor to instill encouragement.”
Gabe and Brian provided major, career, and transfer information as students’ pseudoacademic counselors. Gabe utilized his counseling knowledge to inform students about transfer
programs, “We have a university that offers an accelerated 18-month program structured for
working adults.” Finally, Eli mentioned the need to strengthen students’ academic capital
through encouragement and structure. Eli said, “Sometimes we must go that extra mile and
become the pseudo-parent. They will hate you for it, and you will get the worst of it. You will
get kudos after they recognize that you care about their progress.” As faculty embraced
diversified roles, they relied on various interventions.
Faculty addressed the need to implement interventions beyond the current teaching scope
to support the career, mental health, and counseling student needs. The micro-interventions

64
utilized by Eli, Brian, Hana, Julian, Demi, Faith, Ivy, and Alex significantly influenced retention.
Eli’s approach was to provide tutoring based on the model “Each One, Teach One, where the
strategy was that you teach somebody something. You tell students; do not worry about paying
me back. Instead, teach it to somebody else.” Brian’s approach recognized students’ mental
health needs by personalizing referral resources. Brian directly connected students with service
providers and said students “value and appreciate the individual attention.”
Since Brian, Alex, Gabe, Eli, Demi, and Julian provided students with their cell numbers,
they immediately followed up with them. Students reported the positive difference the faculty’s
attentiveness made in their lives. For example, Alex’s dean asked him how a student only passed
his course while failing the rest of his classes. Alex replied, “We discussed what it was like
breaking down barriers and connected through our experiences.” Alex expressed the special
attention he showed students through the following, “Some responses I get from students is that
you are different from some of my teachers. You do care. Students can sense you care about
them.” The micro-interventions were essential for students to thrive in the virtual class, while the
macro-interventions contributed to personal growth.
The macro interventions included intentional practices to meet students’ belonging needs
through diverse learning opportunities. Demi’s role as president of a faculty organization enabled
her to introduce students to alternative resources and opportunities, “When I invite students to
community events, the educational space grows.” Alex’s collaborative philosophy helped
students overcome challenges. Alex said, “The first thing to do is check in with the student
services staff since they are there to support students.” For example, Ivy joined students in fun
activities, facilitating connections in a relaxed environment. Ivy said, “Students prefer Bingo
through Zoom. There is a high turnout, and the prizes and the faculty are great. The staff elevates

65
the relationship and the conversation between the chat as a back channel to the primary channel.”
The focus on interactive activities significantly supported team building.
Project and Team-Based Learning
Project and team-based learning provided alternative skill acquisition platforms and
strengthened peer-peer relationships. Eli’s students did “a parity on a given topic with three
components, the parity, the paper, and a presentation.” Students actively participated in the
selected music genre after initial hesitation. The researcher enjoyed a student video set to Reggae
music and concurred with Eli’s statement, “The singing project breaks many barriers and makes
students feel engaged.” Singing about the course subject while building an online community
was a successful strategy to support students’ sense of belonging.
Faculty videos provided students with subject competency and increased self-efficacy.
Demi’s students did a weekly oral video where they read a passage or shared their favorite song.
Demi said, “The instructors’ and students’ voices must constantly interchange in the course to
feel connected. Sometimes the student response is basic, but as long as you do something, that is
the connector.” According to Demi, the weekly oral exchanges supported course retention and
success. The activities facilitated learning concepts in a fun and creative format. However,
faculty realized that some student needs were beyond their scope and relied on the campus
resources to support students.
Networking and Referral
Faculty provided students with access to guidance staff through mentors, tutors,
counselors, and field experts. Tutoring was a common strategy utilized by faculty to enhance
learning. Eli said, “My college hires tutors, and I also hire tutors for my classes. These students
have previously done well in my class, which is one of the best things for current students.” The

66
tutor also served successfully as a mentor. Alex, Hana, Gabe, and Chloe regularly offered extra
credit for tutoring. Gabe said, “They’ve [institution] trained tutors for Zoom tutoring.” Counselor
referrals were a common strategy utilized by Alex, Gabe, Hana, and Demi utilized. Gabe reached
out to the counselors early when a student had trouble engaging and said, “I try to overcome that
by communicating with the counselors.”
Brian provided students with career information and networking opportunities: “I
regularly bring in physical therapy, pharmacy, or optometry. By doing that, I have everybody
together, connecting them with people I trust.” Brian’s philosophy was for students to
conceptualize theory into practice as they considered career options. Julian’s approach was to
expand the students’ supportive network. He said, “I think my strategy helped many more kids
stay in college and encouraged them to connect with other teachers. It is always a coaching
process for students to do better.” Gabe’s referral process connected students to field experts.
Gabe said, “I include contact information in the message, which seems like a warm handoff to
students.” Faculty supported students’ well-being by meeting their diverse needs.
Student Well-Being
The findings on sense of belonging and student well-being included self-efficacy, mental
health, academic progress, and interpersonal development.
Self-Efficacy
The faculty implemented a strength-based approach to nurture self-efficacy. Alex’s belief
in students’ capacity to succeed enhanced their performance. Alex said, “I set a precedent on day
one that I am here for you. I am here to support your educational needs. I want you all to pass so
you can succeed in life.” Hana’s message reassured students, “The one thing I tell my students is
that I am not here to flunk or trick them. I will give you what you need to pass this course.

67
Everyone can pass the course.” Gabe established lateral faculty-student relationships to increase
students’ confidence, “When they have a sense of belonging, they ask every question because
they feel comfortable.” Students’ comfort increased with exposure to cultural practices.
Chloe and Demi promoted cultural connections between students and the subject matter
to enhance self-efficacy. Chloe’s students shared their stories and “then applied the motivational
concepts in their replies to classmates and why they feel they were successful.” Chloe’s
assignment provided a space for diversity and peer connection. Demi believes “The best strategy
for student engagement is video because it is a cultural language, that is sense of belonging.”
While cooking, Demi often does Zoom meetings and videos from her kitchen to introduce
students to the culture and food. Demi said, “I get my coffee and my conchita [Mexican bread],
and I tell them stories about my abuelita [grandma] to let them know that I am part of the culture.
Students remember stories about their grandmas, and we connect.” Faculty acknowledged that
strengthening self-efficacy contributed to students’ mental health.
Mental Health
The faculty intervened directly or through a referral process to support students’ mental
health. The safe environment and comfort level faculty created by sharing their story helped
students identify and connect with peers and the faculty. Students’ mental health improved due
to the perceived faculty support. Hana said, “My personal stories help students connect with the
challenging parts of their childhood. It is part of psychologically looking into yourself.” Gabe
shared previous challenges: “Working in the fields [agriculture] and failing college twice opens
communication. Students identified with my story.” As Gabe’s students related to his struggles,
they also identified with his perseverance.

68
Demi noted that sense of belonging supported students’ mental grit, “Students thrive
more when they belong and feel happy.” Ivy conducted a study and found “a high correlation
between students’ mental health and online engagement.” Ivy’s statement reflected the benefit of
the faculty’s interventions, “If you create an engaging enough environment, then students are
going to be more engaged and have more of a sense of belonging.” For example, Eli worked with
two students with emotional and home problems to cultivate their sense of belonging. Eli’s
interventions resulted in “First, making it comfortable to talk to me helped them not drop out of
classes. Second, it kept them from hurting themselves or hurting someone else. Third, it helped
them get out of unhealthy situations.” Eli’s interventions proved life-changing for his students.
Faculty relied on institutional and community resources to refer students to areas beyond
their professional specialty. Brian stated that he does not have any counseling training; however,
he was intuitive about the needs of his students and provided resources. Brian said, “I post
mental health information. Students say you have no idea how much that means to me.” Brian
followed up with students who were struggling to ensure their continued progress. Hana’s
approach was to empower students when dealing with challenging courses or life matters. Hana
said, “When they are vulnerable, having ownership allows them to feel safe and builds their selfesteem. Feeling safe to share in class gives them a sense of belonging.” As students achieve
mental wellness, they can turn their focus on progressing academically.
Academic Progress
Students were more likely to succeed when they interacted in an inclusive and safe
environment, according to Alex, Gabe, Faith, Eli, and Chloe. Demi said, “Once students have a
good sense of belonging, they improve their grades.” The faculty’s interest in students’ lives
made a difference in the degree of participation. According to Faith, “Students believe that you

69
know their fulfillment of the course, and they know the faculty’s commitment to them, and the
increase and retention are related to whether or not the faculty is present.” Faculty assisted
students in developing coping skills to overcome challenges and facilitate course completion. For
example, Gabe’s student said, “I failed all my classes, but not yours. I went to yours because you
reached out to me and asked me if I was doing ok.” According to student feedback, Chloe’s
flexible late policy was pivotal for course completion: “Your late policy is the best thing I ever
had in my life; this made my day. Thank you so much for reminding me.”
Faculty indicated they maintained an open invitation for students to engage throughout
the semester. Ivy’s statement summarized the invitations made by faculty through messages and
videos, “I am inviting you to show up because I am showing up. Some students engage right
away, and others in weeks three or four when they realize this is real and she really cares.” Gabe
sent wellness messages to inactive students, “How are you doing? Is everything okay?” Gabe’s
high response rate was due to asking about students’ well-being rather than leading with
inquiries about missing assignments. The continuous student engagement attempts by faculty
supported interpersonal skills.
Interpersonal Development
Faculty cultivating a sense of belonging through teaching presence influenced students’
interpersonal skills. Alex initiated teaching presence strategies early in the course to reassure
students that he was their support system: “I think it has everything to do with student belonging,
and that presence is set from day one in a message.” Eli, Julian, and Gabe agreed that an early
teaching presence facilitated student engagement. Hana said, “The big thing about belonging is
that by allowing them to belong, they feel secure.”

70
Chloe said, “A sense of belonging is the answer to everything.” Chloe mentioned
students of color and first-generation “who have imposter syndrome” and how a “sense of
belonging is the thing that will get them over that.” Demi said, “I share my story with students,
my connection with my culture, and being raised bilingual. Once I expose myself to students,
they tend to gravitate toward me. They feel a sense of belonging.” The faculty’s attentiveness to
establishing personal connections supported students’ interpersonal development since they
knew someone cared. Julian mentioned, “Once you create a relationship with the student, they
will feel like they belong.” However, there are instances where ineffective teaching presence
does not cultivate belonging.
Ineffective Teaching Presence Strategies
The themes related to ineffective teaching presence strategies included the apparent lack
of faculty presence, equity-minded deficiencies, and the absence of humanization. Even though
student misinterpretation was not part of teaching presence, faculty added the theme due to the
subjective nature of message interpretation.
Lack of Faculty Presence
Eli’s comment best summarized the faculty’s unavailability, “You cannot interact with
the students if you are not present.” Eli does not believe in minimal faculty course participation.
Eli said, “Grading and only making comments is not being present, and this style does not
recognize what is happening with the students.” Julian’s opinion was related to the faculty’s
professional commitment, “In instances where faculty see teaching as a job instead of a
profession, sense of belonging can be hindered. Yes, when people see it as a job, they will not
produce.” Alex’s perspective was, “When some faculty are not as engaged or as passionate about
teaching, students can sense that and do not want to approach them.” Demi noted the lack of

71
faculty engagement through technology, “A video with only your voice telling students what to
do is negative. Students may say, I do not know why I am here. Do I have any connection to
you? Do I belong here?” As students questioned whether they belonged in the institution, faculty
also needed to reflect on the meaning of faculty presence. Faith noted, “If faculty do not
acknowledge how they define faculty presence, then implementation is questionable.” The lack
of faculty presence and equity-minded deficiencies are detrimental to students.
Equity-Minded Faculty Deficiencies
The faculty’s equity-minded deficiencies do not cultivate sense of belonging, erode
students’ trust, and interrupt the community-building process. Faculty considered equity a silent
subject necessitating attention due to individuals’ overt and covert biases. Demi noted, “We do
not like to talk about these issues and make them invisible.” As equity-mindedness remained
invisible, so did students’ identities. Faculty’s limited cultural awareness categorized students
into primary ethnic groups while disregarding the sub-group characteristics. The erroneous
assumption was that a deductive process would yield detailed cultural aspects. Faculty shared
peers’ reliance on colleagues as resource guides on race instead of attending equity training.
Demi stated, “Instructors say, I have teaching presence, but I do not even know who the students
are. I tell them they must take an equity course to have that conversation.” In addition to
professional development on equity, diversity, and inclusion, the faculty’s disposition to
implement inclusive practices was necessary.
The faculty concurred that understanding a diverse student body enhances service
delivery. Faith stated, “The American culture of higher education defines presence differently,
and my response to one student may not speak presence to another. Faculty must get to know and
understand the students’ cultural differences as best as possible.” Alex said, “We talk a lot about

72
inclusivity and doing what suits our students, but only a small percentage of faculty engage in
inclusive and equity-minded interventions.” Alex recommended engaging in self-reflection to
understand the faculty role best: “We need a better self-evaluation and a comparison analysis on
how faculty impact students’ feelings.” According to Alex, equity-mindedness can help the
faculty understand that “Belongingness looks different and means different things to minorities
and people of color than a general student.” However, the faculty’s resistance to capacity
building may lead to neglecting humanizing practices.
Faculty’s Absence of Humanization
Humanization as a regular teaching presence strategy was essential in forming
connections and building trust. However, the absence of humanization contributed to a
breakdown in the faculty-student relationship. According to Faith, “When you do not show
humanization, then you are not showing belongingness. When you are not showing
communication or using poor manners, you are not doing intentional practices.” According to
Hana, “The instructor has to be able to build trust, and the students have to be able to trust what
you say. Otherwise, it does not create a sense of community, let alone a sense of belonging.”
Julian believed “education is not a job; it is a calling” and requires a continuous commitment to
engage with students. Julian said, “You must have it in your heart; many of them [faculty] do
not. That is where the system fails.” The faculty’s absence of or limited humanization disrupts
the intended message content.
Student Misinterpretation
While student misinterpretation is not a teaching presence strategy, the faculty included
the construct due to the corrosive effects on students’ sense of belonging. The faculty concurred
with Gabe, “We do not know how students will take it [interpret message]. If the student reads

73
the message in a way that eliminates that sense of belonging, they no longer feel appreciated.”
Ivy said, “It can be the same coin, two different sides. It can be great for someone or terrible for
someone else, but that does not mean you should not do it. Make sure that you are
differentiated.” Gabe provided a relatable example, “I think that goes into the micro level to
individual interpretation. My feedback and response get reinterpreted differently. Just as we all
interpret a text message differently.”
Chloe said, “I cannot read students’ minds. Many things that I do affect students in
different ways.” Hana’s stories were misinterpreted by some students, as if she was personalizing
the information. Hana said, “They want to cross academic boundaries and become friends or get
to know you in a different capacity.” Hana’s solution was to “put a significant boundary on some
students.” Ivy indicated, “There are factors outside a faculty member's control. I think what is
going on in the students’ lives. You cannot influence or impact them.” Faculty can only control
the message content and its delivery; however, the interpretation is up to the students.
Summary: Research Question 2
The second research question addressed how teaching presence cultivated sense of
belonging. The faculty expanded teaching presence beyond the virtual classroom through role
diversification, referred to by Demi as “familia academica.” Faculty acted as mentors and
sponsors to provide students with new learning opportunities in their expanded role capacity.
Students participated in the micro and macro interventions facilitated by faculty to support
student well-being and enhance self-efficacy, mental health, and academic progress.
Faculty addressed three ineffective teaching presence strategies that did not cultivate
sense of belonging and one practice by students that interrupted belonging. First, the apparent
lack of teaching presence was significant since faculty must be present to engage with students.

74
Simply managing and grading assignments was not considered teaching presence by faculty.
Second, equity-minded faculty deficiencies are connected to the institution’s value system.
Optional capacity-building on equity, diversity, and inclusion for institutional agents left a
service void to meet the needs of a diverse student body. Third, the faculty’s absence of
humanization affected relationship formation and belonging development. Even though student
misinterpretation is not part of teaching presence, faculty included it as a final category due to
the damaging effects on students’ sense of belonging.
Findings: Research Question 3
The two primary findings for question three included professional development with the
related sub-themes of required versus optional certification and self-initiated professional
development. The finding of distance education departments included the impermanence of a
dedicated and staffed resource center. Faculty considered the availability of institutional
resources commensurate with institutional teaching presence support.
Professional Development
The professional development practices ranged institutionally from required online
certification and ongoing training to optional capacity building. The institutionally sponsored
professional development opportunities included learning management system training and
workshops. Hana said, “Doing the training made me feel better since I had more ideas and
opportunities to connect with my students.” Julian stated, “There is a great platform with a lot of
support. Everything is in place for you to connect with the students; it is up to the instructor how
far they want to go.” Gabe’s institution conducted training, “and the recording is emailed if we
did not have time to attend. There is training for any new changes and updates, which makes our
life easier.” Ivy credited institutional commitment to distance education for successful course

75
implementation. According to Ivy, “The number one reason we had success in this area was that
online teaching was ingrained before the [COVID-19] pandemic started, as a culture in our
college that online learning is something we all do.”
Required Versus Optional Certification
Online certification and professional development were optional for faculty, except for
Ivy’s Institution. Brian’s institution shifted to required training due to an administrative mandate.
Brian stated, “Every faculty member at the college has to go through training by May 2024. The
institution realized they will have to step up their game.” Brian’s institution did “not have master
course shells or faculty release time for developing a class.” According to Alex, “the school
promotes learning strategies and peer learning, but who adopts it?” A support staff member at
Eli’s institution was responsible for training. However, Eli said, “I feel bad because no one will
attend the development training K organizes.”
Faculty expressed concern about optional training due to the variances in course delivery.
Faith said, “I believe that optional training should not be offered. All online faculty must be
certified, with minimal webinars or professional development.” Chloe, Demi, Julian, Ivy, and
Hana preferred that the institution require certification and professional development. Brian said,
“It is almost an individual effort as to who will gravitate to absorbing or adopting some of those
policies since it is voluntary rather than required.” The faculty chose to be proactive in building
capacity to enhance service delivery.
Self-Initiated Professional Development
The faculty shared a strong commitment to strengthening pedagogy and technical
competency in distance education. Faith, Hana, and Brian completed non-institutional training
before teaching online. Hana said, “I took the initiative to get certified and understand the online

76
community.” Faith stated, “I developed these skills on my own [non-institutional training].”
Brian’s professional development efforts paid off when he received a “Blackboard award for
how I structured my classes, which were used as a model for my college.” Due to their expertise
in distance education, Faith, Brian, and Ivy have professional development leadership roles
within their institutions.
Faculty peer-initiated networks provided creative options for course design and problemsolving. Hana said, “I view my colleagues’ Canvas pages, which helps me see how they have
done things. There is a lot of faculty engagement.” As the lead faculty in his department, Gabe
ensured adjunct faculty received training. Gabe said, “Since I am here to support them, I checkin with them more frequently.” Gabe developed departmental standards with required
certification and professional development built-in the curriculum. Within Chloe’s department,
faculty relied on each other for creative ideas. Chloe said, “I find it more valuable to know what
faculty are using, what is working, and what results they are getting.” Demi also relied on faculty
to enhance competency, “I share activities with other faculty since it helps to have a supportive
faculty community. If I need help with events, my colleagues will support me.” The concept of
distance education departments varied from being fully functioning sites to having a staff
member on reassigned time providing resources.
Distance Education Departments
Established Distance Education Departments offering technical and training assistance
were limited to Ivy, Faith, Demi, Hana, Chloe, and Gabe’s institutions. Ivy’s institution had “a
university level professional development training program, led by the Center for Teaching and
Learning and quarterly brown bag workshops.” As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Gabe’s
institution realized the need and benefits of distance education professional development. Gabe

77
said, “As an institution, we took it upon ourselves to say we need to get the training to the
masses and for faculty to be certified.” According to Chloe, “We have a great instructional
designer that works for our campus.” Alex, Brian, Eli, and Julian relied on a faculty member's
reassigned time for the distance education role.
According to Brian, “They [institution] have the technological resources to do this
[distance education] but not much support for using those resources.” Consequently, Brian was
assigned to fulfill the professional development duties and said, “It is not even really a distance
education department.” Even though training was available at Alex’s institution, attendance was
minimal. Alex said, “How do we mandate that [training] within our policies since the
requirements are fairly vague?” Since institutions did not require professional development, the
role of the distance education staff was limited to supporting interested staff. Consequently,
faculty attendance in professional development was low, as indicated by Eli and Alex.
Institutions with distance education departments were more successful in preparing and
supporting faculty to teach online. Consequently, faculty reported feeling supported at
institutions with robust professional development programs and dedicated distance education
departments.
Summary: Research Question 3
Faculty concurred that the COVID-19 pandemic-imposed distance education into the
institutional culture on a massive scale regardless of the faculty’s capacity to teach online. As the
COVID-19 pandemic receded, Gabe and Ivy’s institutions augmented distance education centers
and required certification and professional development. However, optional certification and
professional development remained at most institutions, resulting in discrepancies in distance
educational standards, program reviews, and articulation. Regardless of the varying degrees of

78
institutional support, faculty proactively pursued certification, professional development, and
peer networks to enhance their knowledge base.
Additional Findings
The faculty’s additional contributions to the study included the need to redefine online
learning pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic, the influence of faculty demographics and
determinants in implementing teaching presence, and institutional agents responsible for
fostering belonging strategies.
Re-Defining Learning Pre- and Post-COVID-19 Pandemic
Faculty discussed online learning differences pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic,
including student expectations, demographics, and institutional distance education definitions.
For example, Chloe said before the COVID-19 pandemic, “The typical student was older, maybe
a returning student with a full-time job or a family, where online education was a choice since
they could not come to campus.” Chloe noted, “Everybody, including instructors and students,
acknowledged that taking an online course is going to be hard since you would do much more
work alone.” Faculty recommended self-motivation for academic success to support the rigor of
online courses. However, the changes in distance education prompted re-assessing the structure
of online learning and related faculty recommendations.
Ivy emphasized the institutional importance of engaging in redefining online learning.
Ivy said, “There is a difference between online learning and emergency remote teaching.” Ivy
continued, “The challenge is that we went into the pandemic and defined online learning, but it is
not the right definition.” Faith, Alex, Chloe, Gabe, and Hana agreed with Ivy’s proposal that
online learning needs to be redefined by institutions due to the effects of the COVID-19
pandemic on student learning. As institutions redefined learning, Chloe recommended, “The

79
college has to address accessibility since it will benefit those students who can only get a college
education by being online.” Faculty also noted several changes in the students’ approach to
online courses.
Alex believed, “Pre-pandemic [COVID-19], students were super engaged, even within
asynchronous or synchronous classes.” However, Alex believed that students’ motivation and
expectations changed, “Post-COVID-19, many students believe that instructors will just let them
pass. I do not feel they rose to the occasion or the standard previously set.” Ivy indicated,
“Before 2020, students self-selected into online classes, which provided them with choices.”
Then, the distance education landscape changed as Ivy observed, “We took everyone and shoved
them into online learning with untrained online instructors and students who were not trying to
take online classes.” The elimination of student choice to take online courses and the lack of
student and faculty preparation contributed to the need to redefine distance education.
Hana had a similar experience and said, “COVID forced instructors to teach online, and
faculty were thrown into online teaching by administrators. I thought it was horrible since I was
not tech-savvy.” Faith said, “During COVID, the university realized they could save money by
not paying overhead costs and transitioned programs online at breakneck speed.” As a result of
the rapid transition, Faith said, “The faculty never received training and did not know or
understand these notions or concepts [belonging], their criticalness, and the role of retention.”
While some institutions were unprepared for the rapid online shift, the faculty’s personal and
professional characteristics supported them in the transition.
Faculty Demographics and Determinants
The faculty considered their demographics and determinants essential to implement
culturally relevant sense of belonging strategies. Faith stated, “Is that faculty new, a novice

80
educator, being forced to teach online, or a personal ambition to teach?” The faculty’s
disposition and degree of experience may influence the implementation of belonging strategies.
Ivy mentioned, “Some faculty did not respond well to an online environment and were really bad
teachers. How do you fault a student for not doing well in a poorly designed or taught class?”
The degree of faculty presence played a role in meeting students’ differentiated belonging needs.
Faith said, “How I meet that student’s presence is very different than how I need to meet other
students’ presence. You must know your students, and it takes time.” The faculty demographics
played an essential role in cultivating belonging, along with the institutional agents.
Institutional Agents to Promote Belonging
The study included the question, “Within your institution, who or what department do
you perceive to have a higher degree of participation in cultivating sense of belonging with
students?” Faculty indicated they were primarily responsible for implementing belonging
strategies due to the frequent student interaction. Eli stated, “I will be a little biased as a STEM
instructor; we typically cultivate a better sense of belonging with students because our
populations are generally smaller.” Chloe’s discipline has a built-in collaborative peer approach
and inclusive pedagogy, and she said, “We cultivate sense of belonging with students by creating
a classroom community. We share the best practice strategies with our colleagues across
campus.” Faith self-initiated training on belonging, then conducted institutional training. Faith
said, “I am the only one trained to know and understand the concept of belonging and
connectedness. I believe our department does it best.”
Alex acknowledged the Academic and Student Success Department in making
connections. “However, I am the first in line to make those connections and relationships for
belongingness.” Alex added, “Cultivating belonging also depends on the faculty’s personalities

81
and strategies. I make those first connections to ensure individuals feel comfortable they belong
within this environment.” However, the faculty agreed that all institutional agents were equally
responsible for contributing to students’ sense of belonging.
The student body stands to benefit from the institutional agents promoting a culture of
belonging. Gabe said, “We all have that responsibility at the college; the counselors, instructors,
and the tutoring center must give that sense of belonging. Everyone who interacts with students
has a sense of responsibility.” Hana stated, “The departments ensure we receive the information,
but the faculty are usually responsible for implementation.” Demi, Ivy, and Brian expressed the
reliance on the extended college community to cultivate a sense of belonging. Demi said, “The
college has a strong community in our staff, and the counselors, some administrators, assistants,
and office managers participate in cultivating sense of belonging.” Ivy said, “Student Affairs has
done an amazing job. The director of online learning helps facilitate all this to create sense of
belonging on a programmatic level and individual classroom models.”
Brian summarized institutional participation best: “I will go out on a limb and say,
everybody.” The student benefit of the collective institutional participation in cultivating sense of
belonging was expressed by Gabe, “We have to be accommodating to our students. Once we
accommodate and hear their voices, that is where they feel involved and welcomed.” Validation
from institutional agents supported student visibility and engagement.
Summary of Other Findings
The faculty stated that redefining online learning post-COVID-19 pandemic and
addressing the differences in student demographics and learning approaches was essential. While
the COVID-19 pandemic required distance education, the student and faculty capacity varied.
The degrees of preparation resulted in differences in course delivery, student expectations, and

82
institutional faculty support. Implementing teaching presence and belonging strategies was
influenced by faculty demographics and determinants, such as degree of experience, professional
development, and faculty disposition. The last finding indicated that while faculty considered
themselves primarily responsible for implementing belonging strategies due to frequent student
contact, every institutional agent was equally responsible. The collective commitment of all
institutional agents contributes to a culture of belonging.

83
Chapter Five: Discussion
The study examined the role of teaching presence in cultivating students’ belonging,
engagement, and well-being, including institutional support to promote teaching presence
(Garrison et al., 2000; Museus et al., 2017b; Peacock et al., 2020). The chapter includes an
analysis of the findings that the Col model’s teaching presence element is integral to cultivating
sense of belonging with post-secondary distance education students. Further, the study connected
the conceptual framework inclusive of teaching presence, where faculty’s strategies supported
students’ motivation to find a sense of purpose and relational value within the need to belong
theory (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Garrison et al., 2000; Peacock et al., 2020). In addition, the
faculty incorporated UDL and culturally responsive teaching (CRT) into the teaching presence
strategies, resulting in a redesigned conceptual framework. The final section includes the
faculty’s recommendations and alignment with the CECE change model to promote equity,
diversity, and inclusion and concludes with further research recommendations.
The qualitative phenomenological study answered three research questions:
1. What sense of belonging strategies are utilized by higher education online instructors
within the community of inquiry model’s teaching presence?
2. What are the higher education online instructor’s experiences on how teaching
presence cultivates students’ sense of belonging and well-being?
3. How do higher education institutions support and promote online instructors’
teaching presence?
RQ1: Promoting Belonging Through Teaching Presence
The study’s findings correlated with the research that the Col’s model teaching presence
element was essential for student engagement (Garrison et al., 2000; Peacock et al., 2020; Rolim

84
et al., 2019). The study found three teaching presence strategies to cultivate belonging: faculty
attributes, student-centered approaches, and communication presence. The teaching presence
strategies aligned with the need to belong theory that stipulates belonging is an innate need
fulfilled through constructive and reciprocal relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Students
establish relationships for their perceived societal value and sense of purpose, which motivates
them to pursue peer and institutional connections (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Strayhorn, 2019).
The faculty’s understanding of the benefits of student engagement as a primary success predictor
guided the teaching presence strategies (Astin, 1993; Lear et al., 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005).
Teaching Presence: Faculty Attributes
The first teaching presence finding to establish student engagement was the faculty’s
unique attributes, with related sub-themes of intentionality, authenticity and storytelling, and
empathy and compassion. The faculty’s teaching presence strategies were intentional for
students’ academic and interpersonal growth. The faculty nurtured relationships and student
participation in supportive learning environments where students thrive (Kuh et al., 2017;
Peacock et al., 2020). Faculty’s authenticity through storytelling supported relationship
formation. For example, Hana shared her story as a young single parent who delayed college,
struggled financially, and eventually completed her degree. Students also identified with Demi,
Eli, and Julian as first-generation working students. The faculty’s authenticity and caring
increased students’ online visibility through retention and crisis resolution.
Empathy and compassion guided the faculty’s teaching presence strategies. According to
Means and Pyne (2017), validation practices support students’ sense of belonging in higher
education. Faculty agreed that a holistic understanding of students’ lived experiences and related

85
effects on academic progress enabled them to support students. Showing empathy and
compassion when students struggled made a difference in course retention. Often, students
disengaged from courses where faculty failed to get to know them and had rigid policies. For
example, Alex and Gabe’s students risked a failing grade; however, they passed the course due
to the faculty’s caring interventions. Hurtado and Carter (1997) state that relationships and group
membership mediate student challenges. The faculty’s student-centered approaches further
supported belonging.
Teaching Presence: Student-Centered Approaches
The second teaching presence finding was the faculty’s use of student-centered
approaches to promote belonging, inclusive of course design, digital competency, and
community building. Saba and Shearer (2018) state that faculty meet students’ needs through
course structure. The faculty’s achievable goals provided a clear pathway for successful course
completion (Garrison et al., 2000). For example, Alex acknowledged students’ capacity to meet
course expectations and provided a clear path for success. Hana’s flexible built-in late policy
allowed students to stay on track without penalizing them for unexpected life events. Demi noted
that when students saw their voices reflected in curriculum decisions, their course investment
increased. Similarly, Ivy’s students enjoyed contributing to the co-created syllabus. The faculty’s
inclusionary student practices aligned with the literature, where students reported that course
design was one of the most critical factors in their success (Song et al., 2014). Faculty combined
course design with technology to support students further.
Students achieved digital competency through technology platforms, which supported
faculty-student partnerships to bridge the distance gap (Holinka, 2015; Moore, 1993). Faith and
Hana appealed to students’ preferences through different digital tools. While Alex provided

86
alternative communication formats, Brian used technology to prepare students for upcoming
lessons, and Eli’s students used it for group work. Students achieved digital competency due to
the faculty’s guidance and feedback (Garrison et al., 2000; Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2018).
Consequently, faculty met students’ diverse learning needs by implementing diverse and flexible
technological tools (Moore, 2019; Saba & Shearer, 2018). In addition, the faculty utilized
student’s practical application of technology to build online communities (Bigatel & Malizia,
2018).
The faculty’s welcoming environment made students feel they belonged to the online
community (Johnson et al., 2017). The faculty prioritized nurturing student connections to close
the TD through peer engagement (Moore, 2018; Shaba & Shearer, 2018). Faculty encouraged
students to interact in problem-solving, leadership, and team-building activities. Students relied
on the online community for academic and emotional support. For example, Eli and Brian’s
students formed study groups to support each other through the challenging subject matter.
According to Liu et al. (2007), faculty and student engagement reflects their desire to build
online communities (Liu et al., 2007).
Teaching Presence: Communication
The third teaching presence finding was communication presence, inclusive of timely
grading and prompt dialogue. The faculty’s availability through email, Zoom, cell phone, and
office visits appealed to students’ personalities and schedules. In addition, communication
presence supported the dynamic flow of the course through discussion posts, lectures, and
feedback, reflecting the faculty’s role as assessors (Martin et al., 2019). For example, Gabe and
Hana directly participated in the student discussions by clarifying information or commenting on

87
posts. The faculty acknowledged that responding promptly to students approximated real-time
communication, a strategy also reflected in grading feedback.
Faculty demonstrated teaching presence by grading on time and providing prompt
feedback. According to Martin et al. (2019), the faculty’s facilitator role is to establish teaching
presence through prompt communication and grading feedback. Since the faculty regarded the
syllabus as an agreement with students, immediate feedback was honored to maintain the
faculty-student relationship. Gabe’s comment reflected the faculty’s goal, “I am considerate of
students and their time. More importantly, I am considerate of their mental health since students
do not want the anxiety and stress of ungraded assignments.” Prompt feedback validated
students’ scholastic efforts and cultivated belongingness (Holinka, 2015; Moore, 1993).
However, the faculty faced challenges to belonging and intervened to counteract the negative
repercussions.
Teaching Presence: Challenges to Belonging
Faculty were challenged to cultivate belonging due to course disengagement,
personalizing virtual students, technology access, and the student’s home environment.
Deprivation or low sense of belonging contributes to student disengagement (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995). Deprivation has negative psychosocial repercussions for students, such as
increased anxiety and depression, leading to isolation and withdrawal from relationships
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Elliott et al., 2005). Faculty shared that teaching presence strategies
sometimes failed to reach some students despite repeated engagement attempts. Consequently,
faculty contacted students several times individually and as a group. Ivy best summarized the
faculty’s inclusionary strategy that provided “multiple on-ramps for engagement” since students
become involved at various intervals. For example, Gabe tried to engage students by asking

88
about their well-being rather than focusing on missed assignments. Eli’s collaborative strategy
included assigning group projects at the beginning of the course to support peer engagement.
However, students’ lack of response led to their withdrawal from the course (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995).
The lack of course participation challenged faculty to personalize students, who are
isolated either by choice or by being rendered invisible by a dominant group or othering
(Phirangee & Malec, 2017). The lack of in-person contact places students at greater risk of
isolation (Bigatel & Malizia, 2017). Faculty shared that identification numbers replaced students’
identities. The students’ perception of institutional apathy and decreased relational value further
compounded the faculty’s attempts to connect with students (Phirangee & Malec, 2017; Museus
et al., 2017b). Another challenge faculty faced in engaging with students was technology usage.
According to faculty, technological access and related application usage have not
maintained pace with the rapid growth of distance education programs. Alex reflected on the
faculty’s concerns that while institutions provide curriculum, they do not often provide students
“with supportive technology.” Further, as Ivy noted, faculty need to instruct students on utilizing
technology rather than make assumptions based on students’ dependence on their smartphones.
According to Peacock et al. (2020), supportive virtual environments foster learning. While
faculty utilized various digital platforms to support student engagement, they acknowledged that
inadequate access to technology and the student’s home environment hindered belonging.
A final challenge to belonging beyond the faculty’s control was the students’ home
environment, which had the potential to disrupt learning. Faculty shared that some students’
homes were not equipped for academic work. Often, students shared living accommodations
with multiple family members, which limited the use of dedicated study spaces. Environmental

89
factors and living accommodations were cited by students as stressors that affected academic
progress (Deasy et al., 2014). The 2021 ACHA student survey reported that 52% of students
considered academics a primary concern. Faculty attempted to mitigate the challenges of
cultivating belonging by perceiving and meeting students’ needs.
RQ 2: Belonging and Student Well-Being
The faculty shared their experiences on how teaching presence cultivated sense of
belonging through faculty role diversification, project- and team-based learning, and networking
and referral. The relationship between the students and the institution influences the
effectiveness of HIPs (Kuh et al., 2017). Increased student engagement and institutional
connectivity exemplify successful HIPs (Kuh et al., 2017). The faculty indicated that teaching
presence supported students’ psychosocial and academic progress, leading to their well-being.
Consequently, faculty were well informed on institutional resources and external services.
According to Rendon (1994), students benefit from knowledgeable staff prepared to meet
students’ belonging needs.
Faculty Roles
In order to best support students, faculty expanded their knowledge base beyond the
virtual class. Faculty assisted students with stress management and conflict resolution through
role diversification. Acting in the capacity of pseudo-counselor was a typical faculty role. For
example, Eli’s interventions prioritized student safety and problem-solving, which prevented
student drop-out. Since the faculty-student relationships fostered trust and communication,
faculty intervened early to support students. Gabe and Alex’s faculty-student connection
validated students. Since students felt seen and heard, they could pass the course. However,

90
students who felt invisible dropped out or failed the course. The relationship with the faculty
supported the students’ sense of self and perceived value (Bollen & Hoyle, 1990).
Team-Based Learning
Faculty engaged students in project and team-based learning to strengthen relationships
and expand the learning space. For example, Demi’s validation practices extended beyond the
virtual to the physical learning environment. As Demi’s students attended cultural activities, they
felt validated by interacting with her. Museus et al. (2017b) state that designing culturally
engaging campus environments is the institution’s responsibility. Faculty members become
familiar with their students’ challenges through the faculty-student relationship and can best
support them holistically. Faculty validated students’ unique backgrounds through the CECE
model’s cultural relevance to strengthen institutional connections (Museus et al., 2017b). In
addition, project and team-based learning strengthened the online community. However, faculty
concurred that they needed to be knowledgeable and resourceful beyond their subject matter to
serve a diverse student body.
Resource and Networking Referral
The faculty’s knowledge of campus and community resources provided ample
networking and referral opportunities to support student development. Faculty acted in
accordance with the Col model indicator of direct instruction, which suggests that faculty refer
students for further individual or group study as needed (Anderson et al., 2000). Faculty referred
students to educational resources, counseling, employment options, and transfer programs.
Faculty’s familiarity with students enabled them to match students’ latent needs, where the
student is unaware of the need, with campus resources (Strayhorn, 2019). Expressed needs,
where students are self-aware and communicate their needs, allow faculty to provide targeted

91
resources such as career and transfer information (Strayhorn, 2019). The faculty’s personalized
student interventions fostered belonging and well-being.
Well-Being
The faculty concurred that belonging was essential for students’ well-being. The findings
for well-being included self-efficacy, mental health, and academic progress. According to
Maslow (1943), belonging is necessary for individuals to progress toward self-actualization. The
third stage of love and belonging motivates individuals to pursue relationships that provide social
connectivity, relational value, and a sense of purpose (Maslow, 1943). According to Lambert et
al. (2013), relationships provide belonging and meaningfulness. The faculty’s safe virtual spaces
and belonging strategies helped students navigate college and fostered self-efficacy.
Student Self-Efficacy
The faculty’s application of a strengths-based approach supported students’ self-efficacy
in resolving psychosocial issues such as homelessness, unemployment, or learning difficulties.
Hana stated, “Well-being gives students that power and sense of self.” Brian indicated that
“students’ independence builds up.” The faculty concurred with Gabe that belonging was “an
extremely positive aspect where students are more involved and talk more to their classmates.”
While the students’ relational value guided their behavior to maintain institutional connections,
sense-making incentivized students to examine the benefits of relationships to their mental health
(Hurtado & Carter, 1997).
Student Mental Health
Group membership and relationships are integral to students’ mental health (Bollen &
Hoyle, 1990). Belonging counteracts the detrimental effects of loneliness, anxiety, and
depression (Mellor et al., 2007). Consequently, the faculty designed group and individual student

92
engagement and inclusion strategies. For example, faculty used storytelling to identify with
students and as a learning tool. The relatability of the faculty’s challenges, such as Gabe’s
college dismissals, Hana’s college struggles as a single parent, and Alex’s questions about
whether he mattered, enabled students to realize they had the mental grit to succeed (Wilczyńska
et al., 2015). Faculty observed the correlation between students’ mental health improvement and
academic progress when belonging was present.
Academic Performance
As noted by faculty, students’ academic performance improved through student
engagement, assignment completion, and use of campus resources. Rendon (1994) proposes
extending validation practices within and outside the course to support students’ college
transition. Faculty designed collaborative environments to encourage student interaction through
safe spaces for peer-to-peer and faculty-student engagement (Moore, 2019). For example, Hana
encouraged students’ course ownership, Gabe solicited student feedback on activities and
adjusted assignments accordingly, and Eli’s built-in group flexibility permitted student selfselection into the groups that met their needs. Students benefitted from the validation practices
through successful course completion. The faculty’s holistic understanding of the influence of
student characteristics and perceptions on college culture and institutional connectivity
emphasized the importance of teaching presence (Cockshaw et al., 2014; Hurtado & Carter,
1997; Museus et al., 2017b; Strayhorn, 2019). Faculty incorporated UDL & CRT into their
teaching practices to meet students’ needs further.
Supplemental Conceptual Framework
The strategies faculty implemented to cultivate sense of belonging were pedagogically
rooted in UDL and CRT and were added to the conceptual framework, as shown in Figure 4.

93
Figure 4
Supplemental Conceptual Framework
Note. The conceptual framework reflects faculty’s implementation of UDL and CRT to
strengthen teaching presence (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; cast.org, 2024; Garrison et al., 2000;
Gay, 2000; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Moore, 2019; Museus et al., 2017b;
Strayhorn, 2019).

94
Universal Design for Learning
The Center for Applied Special Technology developed the UDL guidelines as “a
framework to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific
insights into how humans learn” (cast.org, 2024, UDL Guidelines para. 1). The goals for learners
are to be purposeful and motivated, resourceful, knowledgeable, strategic, and goal-oriented
(cast.org, 2024). The faculty engagement strategies helped form early peer connections,
acclimated students to the online environment and motivated them to participate.
Pedagogical approaches to having resourceful and knowledgeable learners included
presenting the course material in multiple formats and technologies. In the absence of the inperson lecture, the faculty utilized video and audio-recorded lectures, PowerPoint, and
supplemental material to establish a teaching presence. Brian included guest lecturers to increase
subject knowledge and provided students with career information. While Demi, Ivy, Alex, and
Eli expanded the students’ learning environment by connecting institutional activities to
assignments via Zoom or on-campus.
To develop strategic and goal-directed learners, faculty were intentional about their
availability and provided multiple communication options. For example, Faith said, “I have a
student who is in the sand pit, code for I am in the U.S. military in an undisclosed Middle East
location. I meet with her at 2:00 a.m. since that is what it takes to meet her.” The 10 faculty
members were generous with their availability and were not proponents of strict office hours.
The faculty built flexibility into their schedule to accommodate the variability of online learners.
Gabe said, “Faculty continually communicate in one way or the other to let them know you are
there.” Consequently, frequent communication strengthened the faculty-student relationship and
facilitated goal setting.

95
Culturally Responsive Teaching
The study findings showed that faculty engaged in CRT through storytelling, culturally
diverse assignments, and empathetic interventions. According to Ladson-Billings (1990), CRT is
defined as “a method of teaching that recognizes the importance of students’ cultural references
in the curriculum and all facets of learning” (p. 45). Faculty used storytelling to connect with
ethnically and socio-economically diverse students. Gabe said, “I share my personal story
because the student demographics in my courses are related to my ethnicity and being the first
generation in college.” Demi stated, “The presence of me in the class as a Spanish-speaking firstgeneration college Latina as I share my story with students, my connection with my culture, and
being raised bilingual, helps students gravitate toward me.” As faculty closed the distance gap,
the faculty-student relationship was strengthened through storytelling and empathetic
interventions to support student success. According to CRT, empathy supports culturally
responsive environments where students feel they matter (Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1994).
Lack of Teaching Presence
Faculty included three primary concepts where teaching presence did not cultivate sense
of belonging: lack of faculty presence, faculty’s equity-minded deficiencies, and faculty’s
absence of humanization. Even though student misinterpretation is not part of teaching presence,
faculty included it as a fourth concept since it disrupts belonging.
The lack of teaching presence is the first concept that does not cultivate belonging.
Teaching presence is essential in promoting student engagement and belonging (Garrison et al.,
2000; Peacock et al., 2020; Rolim et al., 2019). However, the faculty’s minimal course
involvement, such as grading without feedback, failing to meet student’s needs, and lack of
communication, results in course disengagement. According to Garrison et al. (2000), facilitating

96
discourse is one of the functions of teaching presence, which promotes engagement. However,
the absence of teaching presence hindered student communication and relationship formation.
The second concept is the faculty’s equity-minded deficiencies that contribute to
generalizing rather than individualizing students. Through the CECE model, Museus et al.
(2017b) indicate the institutional agents’ responsibility to address student diversity through
cultural relevance and cultural responsibility. The faculty’s strategies to address equity, diversity,
and inclusion validate students and create a welcoming campus environment. However, a lack of
equity-minded strategies contributes to social isolation (Mellor et al., 2007). Students perceived
social value decreases as isolation increases and compromises students’ coping mechanisms,
placing them at higher risk of suicide (Joiner, 2005; Van Orden et al., 2010). Further, the
faculty’s absence of humanization exacerbates student vulnerability.
The third concept, the faculty’s absence of humanization, is detrimental to cultivating
belonging. According to Seider et al. (2015), faculty create opportunities for academic, peer, and
institutional engagement. However, the absence of humanization through rigid policies, lack of
communication, and failure to meet student’s needs leads to distrust and disengagement (Leary,
1990; Wilczyńska et al., 2015). The non-existent faculty-student relationship is an added
psychosocial stressor influencing well-being and academic progress (Acharya et al., 2018; Deasy
et al., 2014; Holinka, 2015).
Faculty included the fourth concept of student misinterpretation as disruptive to
cultivating belonging. Since meaning-making is a personal interpretation influenced by
individual experiences and social interactions, misinterpreting the intended message affects trust
(Frankl, 1959). Human behavior is guided through the pursuit of interpreting experiences in
search of purpose, validation, and belonging (Frankl, 1959; Lambert et al., 2013). The faculty

97
shared their positive intent in communicating with students; however, they could not control how
students received the message.
RQ 3: Institutional Promotion of Teaching Presence
The final research question addressed the institutional support and promotion of faculty’s
teaching presence. The emergence of sense of belonging in post-secondary institutions included
student antecedents, inclusive campus environments, and relationships as essential constructs for
psychosocial and academic development (Cockshaw et al., 2014; Hurtado & Carter, 1997;
Museus et al., 2017b; Strayhorn 2019). Previously, Tinto’s theory of departure (1988) placed the
responsibility for college success on the student, which did not reflect the institutional role of
creating inclusive environments (Museus et al., 2017b). However, student success requires a
collective approach where the institution designed a culture of belonging and student learning
engagement opportunities (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Museus et al., 2017b; Strayhorn, 2019). The
findings for research question three and the connections to the literature are included in the
faculty’s five recommendations: professional development, distance education departments, a
centralized digital center on belongingness, cross-campus collaboration for inclusive
environments, and institutional endorsement of a culture of belonging within the teaching
community.
Faculty Recommendations
Faculty made five recommendations to cultivate sense of belonging with post-secondary
distance education students.
Recommendation 1
The faculty recommended that institutions require certification, professional
development, and ongoing capacity building in two core areas. First, distance education

98
certification for faculty was essential to support course consistency and delivery. The second
area was equity, diversity, and inclusion professional development for institutional agents. The
recommendation addressed the institutional practice of optional distance education certification
and professional development in equity, diversity, and inclusion. According to faculty, optional
professional development led to discrepancies in course delivery and decreased student
engagement. According to Hurtado et al. (2015), institutions that recognize faculty and staff
value will invest in professional development and capacity-building resources. The educationally
and culturally relevant practices implemented by faculty and staff support students’ institutional
identification (Rendon, 1989; Seider et al., 2015).
Recommendation 2
The second recommendation was to institutionalize distance education departments with
dedicated staff, operational and renewable budget, and discretion to implement distance
education policy with program oversight. Since faculty concurred with requiring professional
development, a supportive departmental structure was essential for service provision and faculty
support. Six of the participants' institutions had formal distance education departments. Four
participants relied on pseudo-departments staffed with re-assigned faculty or a staff member on a
part-time basis. The departments provided support, professional development, and certification.
However, they could not require training or mandate a distance education policy. Ivy’s
institution was the only one that granted the distance department the authority for professional
development, policy development, and program evaluation.
According to Moore (2018), distance education departments can strengthen faculty’s
strategic plans for connectivity. Faculty implemented successful strategies for engagement and
belonging individually; however, the institution and the students can collectively benefit from

99
campus-wide best practices that support dialogue, structure, and autonomy. The consequences
for programs missing those components are decreased engagement, institutional disconnection,
and student withdrawal (Moore, 2018; Shaba & Shearer, 2018).
Recommendation 3
Faculty recommended a centralized, comprehensive digital center on belongingness,
including implementation strategies, resource acquisition, referral sources, and a networking
system. Most of the faculty-initiated distance education certification was independent of the
institution. To improve proficiency in the sense of belonging strategies, faculty were self-taught
and relied on a peer-to-peer network. The only member to have formal training on belongingness
was Faith. As faculty seek a holistic understanding of students to support them, Strayhorn’s
framework of college student’s sense of belonging provides the background for a centralized
system (Strayhorn, 2019). According to Strayhorn (2019), students experience belonging through
social support and feeling validated by group membership and the institutional community. Since
belonging is vital for psychosocial wellness, goal-directed activities, and engagement, faculty
can benefit from a centralized system that supports their efforts (Wilczyńska et al., 2015).
Recommendation 4
The faculty recommended cross-campus collaboration to nurture inclusive environments
to address the belonging needs of ethnically diverse students. Faculty agreed that belonging
strategies need to be differentiated to be effective. Institutional agents must understand the
components contributing to students’ sense of belonging, such as the relationship between
personal characteristics, college culture, student perception, and institutional attachment, and
work collaboratively across disciplines to support students (Cockshaw et al., 2014; Hurtado &
Carter, 1997; Museus et al., 2017b; Strayhorn, 2019). According to Johnson et al. (2017), HIPs

100
are promising in cultivating belonging, and institutions are responsible for designing welcoming
environments. The CECE model’s cultural relevance and cultural responsibility address the
institutional function of validating students and creating culturally inclusive environments
(Museus et al., 2017b).
Recommendation 5
The last faculty recommendation includes the institutional endorsement of a culture of
belonging within the teaching community. Faculty would like institutional support for policy
development and an operational and renewable budget for belonging resources to facilitate
faculty engagement in affinity groups, self-reflection, and analysis of how faculty attributes
influence student belonging. The provision of the faculty’s sense of belonging supports teaching
presence and institutional endorsement of a culture of belonging within the teaching community,
which is a beneficial investment in the campus community (Garrison et al., 2000; Peacock et al.,
2020; Rolim et al., 2019). In addition to teaching presence, faculty disposition to foster
engagement increases student participation, supports learning, and communities of inquiry
(Garrison et al., 2000; Museus et al., 2017a).
A Model for Change
The CECE model in Figure 5 was selected as the change model due to its applicability to
post-secondary educational environments in two areas within institutional purview. First, cultural
relevance focuses “on the extent to which campus environments engage and reflect the cultural
backgrounds, communities, and identities of diverse college students” (Museus et al., 2017b, p.
195). Second, cultural responsiveness focuses “on the extent to which campus learning and
support systems respond to diverse students’ cultural norms and needs” (Museus et al., 2017b, p.

101
195). Consequently, the faculty recommendations are within the probability of transformation if
the institutions and its members commit to changing the college culture.
Figure 5
The CECE Change Model
Note. Institutions employ the CECE change model’s cultural relevance and responsiveness
elements to cultivate students’ sense of belonging in culturally diverse and inclusive campus
environments. Adapted from “The Impact of Culturally Engaging Campus Environments on
Sense of Belonging,” by S. Museus, V. Yi, and N. Saelua, 2017, Review of Higher
Education, 40(2), 187–215 (https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0001). Copyright 2017 by Johns
Hopkins University Press.

102
Recommendations for Future Research
The two recommendations for future research are to address the collective belonging of
students and the perpetual achievement gap. The mission statements of higher education
institutions reflect messages of equity, diversity, and inclusivity with core values of belonging,
respect, and compassion for all students toward academic attainment. Faculty and staff embrace
the institutional mission and vision when hired. However, the institutional limitations to fulfilling
the mission statements’ aspirational goals are evident when students are adversely affected, as
belonging and academic achievement remain elusive for some student groups.
The first recommendation is for institutions to address students’ collective belonging.
Institutional efforts to promote belonging through individual efforts and designated programming
are insufficient. Student groups wanting to belong are limited to designated safe spaces to be
themselves and ask for support. For example, undocumented and LGBTQIA+ students have
access to a limited number of allies. Institutional agents voluntarily attend training to address the
needs of specialized populations. Students become aware of allies through designated lists and
visible signage in their respective areas. However, the geographical size of institutions and the
limited number of available allies create a type of ‘checkerboard’ support system where students
feel safe with some staff and not others. For example, if an ally is unavailable, a student must
look for another known ally throughout the campus instead of accessing any available
institutional agent. The message delivered to students is of exclusion, limitation, and institutional
intolerance.
The number of designated allies is limited as institutional agents exercise their choice to
voluntarily participate in professional development to promote student equity, diversity, and
inclusion. If every member fulfills the transformative institutional mission and vision, the entire

103
institution would be redefined as a safe space. Institutional agents will be better prepared to assist
diverse student populations as they participate in required professional development.
Consequently, students will feel welcomed everywhere within the institution and have unlimited
access to any institutional member.
The second research recommendation is to examine the mechanisms necessary to disrupt
the perpetual achievement gap for ethnically diverse students. Despite the cyclical proliferation
of post-secondary education programs aimed at closing the achievement gap, success has been
tenuous at best. The same demographic groups, minorities from low SES backgrounds, continue
to experience the repercussions of educational stratification. Decades of racial inequality have
contributed to economic, degree attainment, and employment erosion for minorities. Students
can benefit from institutions examining their responsibility to create and maintain sustainable
systemic change toward a belonging culture for all students.
Conclusion
The study examined the role of teaching presence in cultivating post-secondary distance
education students’ sense of belonging and well-being, including institutional support to promote
teaching presence. The research connected teaching presence as a primary contributor to student
engagement and belonging as an essential construct for students’ psychosocial well-being and
academic development. Students thrived in institutional environments that fostered culturally
relevant practices that met students’ diverse needs. The faculty’s strategies supported
relationship formation through the Col model’s teaching presence element and the need to
belong theory. In addition, the supplemental conceptual framework incorporated the faculty’s
implementation of UDL and CRT methodologies to strengthen pedagogy. The findings included

104
the institutions’ pivotal role and responsibility for fostering inclusive, diverse, and equitable
campus environments through the CECE model.
The faculty’s recommendations were grounded in the CECE change model inclusive of
the institutional recognition of teaching presence as essential to cultivating belonging through
resource acquisition to support faculty. The faculty concurred on required versus optional
professional development and certification necessary for competency and augmenting faculty
contributions for student engagement to close the distance gap. Further, faculty recommended
institutionalizing distance education departments to solidify the permanence of resources and
staff. A centralized and comprehensive digital center on belonging would support the faculty’s
role and contribute to the cross-campus collaboration of institutional agents to nurture inclusive
environments. A final recommendation emphasized the universal premise of the need to belong
as a motivating factor contributing to goal-directed activities for students and faculty. The
institutional acknowledgment of faculty’s belonging needs is fundamental to support teaching
presence and create a culture of belonging within the teaching community.

105
References
Acharya, L., Jin, L., & Collins, W. (2018). College life is stressful today – Emerging stressors
and depressive symptoms in college students. Journal of American College Health, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1451869
Ahn, M. Y., & Davis, H. H. (2020). Four domains of students’ sense of belonging to university.
Studies in Higher Education, 45(3), 622–634.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1564902
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2019). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an
online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and
teaching presence. Online Learning (Newburyport, Mass.), 12(3-4), 3–22.
https://doi.org/10.24059/OLJ.V12I3-4.1680
American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/taskforce-2006.pdf
American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/
An, B. (2010). The relations between race, family characteristics, and where students apply to
college. Social Science Research, 39(2), 310–323.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.08.003
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in
a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2).
http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/jaln-vol5issue2v2.htm
Bair, D. E., & Bair, M. A. (2011). Paradoxes of online teaching. International Journal for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(2). https://doi.org/ 10.20429/ijsotl.2011.050210

106
Baleria, G. (2019). Story Sharing in a Digital Space to Counter Othering and Foster Belonging
and Curiosity among College Students. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 11(2), 56–
78. https://doi.org/10.23860/jmle-2019-11-2-4
Baleria, G. (2021). Counteracting Othering in the Community College Setting: Increasing
Belonging and Curiosity to Improve Student Success. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 45(4), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2019.1689207
Barratt, J. M., & Duran, F. (2021). Does psychological capital and social support impact
engagement and burnout in online distance learning students? Internet and Higher
Education, 51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2021.100821
Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as
a fundamental human-motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of Social Exclusion on
Cognitive Processes: Anticipated Aloneness Reduces Intelligent Thought. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 817–827. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.83.4.817
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., &
Bethel, E. C. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in
Distance Education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844
Bigatel, P. M., & Edel-Malizia, S. (2018). Using the “Indicators of Engaged Learning Online”
Framework to Evaluate Online Course Quality. TechTrends, 62(1), 58–70.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0239-4

107
Blackwell, E., & Pinder, P. J. (2014). What are the motivational factors of first-generation
minority college students who overcome their family histories to pursue higher
education? College Student Journal, 48(1), 45+.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A372252066/GPS?u=usocal_main&sid=bookmarkGPS&xid=7e06fca2
Bloch, R., & Mitterle, A. (2017). On stratification in changing higher education: The “analysis of
status” revisited. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education
Research, 73(6), 929–946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0113-5
Bloome, D. (2015). Income Inequality and Intergenerational Income Mobility in the United
States. Social Forces, 93(3), 1047–1080.
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/24754213
Boland, W., Gasman, M., Nguyen, T., & Castro Samayoa, A. (2018). The master plan and the
future of California higher education: Assessing the impact of state policy on minorityserving institutions. American Educational Research Journal, 55(6), 1369–1399.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218787463
Bollen, K., & Hoyle, R. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination.
Social Forces, 69(2), 479–504. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/69.2.479
Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2018). Online student perceptions of engagement, transactional
distance, and outcomes. Distance Education, 39(3), 299–316.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1476845
Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping
research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A

108
systematic evidence map. International journal of educational technology in higher
education, 17(1), 1-30.
Carvallo, M., & Gabriel, S. (2006). No Man Is an Island: The Need to Belong and Dismissing
Avoidant Attachment Style. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(5), 697–709.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205285451
CAST.org (2024). https://www.cast.org/
Chavez, A. F., Guido-DiBrito, F., & Mallory, S. L. (2003). Learning to value the “other”: A
framework of individual diversity development. Journal of College Student Development,
44(4), 453–469. doi:10.1353/csd.2003.0038
Cockshaw, W., Cockshaw, W. D., Shochet, I. M., & Obst, P. L. (2014). Depression and
Belongingness in General and Workplace Contexts: a cross-lagged longitudinal
investigation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology (33, Issue 5).
https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2014.33.5.448
Col website https://coi.athabascau.ca/coi-model/coi-survey/
Costin, V., & Vignoles, V. L. (2020). Meaning Is About Mattering: Evaluating Coherence,
Purpose, and Existential Mattering as Precursors of Meaning in Life Judgments. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(4), 864–884.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000225
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (Fifth edition.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Deasy, C., Coughlan, B., Pironom, J., Jourdan, D., & Mannix-Mcnamara, P. (2014).
Psychological distress and coping amongst higher education students: A mixed method
enquiry. PLoS One, 9(12), e115193. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115193

109
De Gagne, J. C. & Walters, K. J. (2010). The lived experience of online educators: Hermeneutic
phenomenology. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2).
https://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no2/degagne_0610.htm
Denice, P. (2015). Does it pay to attend a for-profit college? Vertical and horizontal stratification
in higher education. Social Science Research, 52, 161–178.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.02.002
Department of Education Federal Register (2020).
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/02/2020-18636/distance-educationand-innovation
Dueñas, M., & Gloria, A. M. (2017). Pertenezco a esta Universidad?: The Mediating Role of
Belonging for Collective Self-Esteem and Mattering for Latin@ Undergraduates. Journal
of College Student Development, 58(6), 891–906. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0070
Elliott, G., Kao, S., & Grant, A.-M. (2004). Mattering: Empirical Validation of a SocialPsychological Concept. Self and Identity, 3(4), 339–354.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500444000119
Elliott, G. C., Colangelo, M. F., & Gelles, R. J. (2005). Mattering and suicide ideation:
Establishing and elaborating a relationship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(3), 223–
238. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800303
Farrell, L. C., Jorgenson, D., Fudge, J., & Pritchard, A. (2018). College connectedness: The
student perspective. The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(1), 75–95.
https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v18i1.22371
Flett, G., Khan, A., & Su, C. (2019). Mattering and psychological well-being in college and
university students: Review and recommendations for campus-based initiatives.

110
International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 17(3), 667–680.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00073-6
France, M. K., & Finney, S. J. (2010). Conceptualization and utility of university mattering: A
construct validity study. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development,
43(1), 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175610362369
Garrison, D. R. (1985). Three generations of technological innovation in distance 140 education.
Distance Education, 6(2), 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158791850060208
Garrison, D. R. (2009). Implications of online learning for the conceptual development and
practice of distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 93–104.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ851906
Garrison, D. R. (2011). E–Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice
(2nd ed.). Routledge/Falmer.
Garrison, D. R. (2016). Thinking collaboratively. Routledge/Falmer. Garrison, D. R. (2017). Elearning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for research and
practice (3rd ed.). Routledge/Falmer.
Garrison D. R. (2020). CoI design principles revisited.
http://www.thecommunityofinquiry.org/editorial25
Garrison, D.R. (2015). Thinking Collaboratively: Learning in a Community of Inquiry (1st ed.).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315740751
Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E–Learning in the 21st century: A framework for
research and practice. Routledge/Falmer.

111
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based
environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and
Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/ s1096-7516(00)00016-6
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of
inquiry: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 5–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework:
Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–
172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
Garrison D. R. & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning:
Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2
Garrison D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung T. (2009). Exploring causal relationships among
teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry
framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31–36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002
Gay, G. (2018). Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research and Practice (3rd ed.).
Teachers College Press.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for Culturally Responsive Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
53(2), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053002003
Grusky, D. (2014). Social stratification: Class, race, and gender in sociological perspective (4th
ed.). Westview Press.

112
Halbreich, U. (2022). Well-being: Diversified perspectives in search of operational
definitions. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 68(4), 705-707.
Hausmann, L. R., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor of
intentions to persist among African American and White first-year college students.
Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 803–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-007-
9052-9
Holinka, C. (2015). Stress, Emotional Intelligence, and Life Satisfaction in College
Students. College Student Journal, 49(2), 300–311.
Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher
Reflection. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195–202.
Huang, X., Chandra, A., DePaolo, C., Cribbs, J., & Simmons, L. (2015). Measuring transactional
distance in web-based learning environments: an initial instrument development. Open
Learning, 30(2), 106–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2015.1065720
Hughes, G. (2007). Diversity, identity and belonging in e-learning communities: Some theories
and paradoxes. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(5–6), 709–720.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701596315
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus
racial climate on Latino students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70(4),
324–345. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673270
Hurtado, S., Ruiz Alvarado, A., & Guillermo-Wann, C. (2015). Creating inclusive environments:
The mediating effect of faculty and staff validation on the relationship of
discrimination/bias to students’ sense of belonging. Journal Committed to Social Change

113
on Race and Ethnicity, 1(1), 60-80. https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2642-2387.2015.1.1.59-
81
Jacob, S., & Radhai, S. (2016). Trends in ICT e-learning: Challenges and expectations.
International Journal of Innovative Research & Development, 5(2), 196–201.
http://52.172.159.94/index.php/ijird/article/view/86084/0
Jiang, W. (2017). Interdependence of roles, role rotation, and sense of community in an online
course. Distance Education, 38(1), 84-105.
Johnson, D., Soldner, M., Leonard, J., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K., Rowan-Kenyon, H., &
Longerbeam, S. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year undergraduates
from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 525–
542. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0054
Joiner, T. (2005). Why people die by suicide. Harvard University Press.
Kennedy, D. M. (2002). Dimensions of distance: A comparison of classroom education and
distance education. Nurse Education Today, 22(5), 409-416.
https://doi.org/10.1054/nedt.2002.0741
Kilgo, C. A., Mollet, A. L., & Pascarella, E. T. (2016). The estimated effects of college student
involvement on psychological well-being. Journal of College Student
Development, 57(8), 1043–1049. https://doi.org/10.1453/csd.2016.0098
Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement.
Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0099
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163320

114
Lear, J. L., Ansorge, C., & Steckelberg, A. (2010). Interactivity/community process model for
the online education environment. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 71–
77.
Leary, M. R. (1990). Responses to social exclusion: Social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness,
depression, and low self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(2), 221–
229. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1990.9.2.221
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-Esteem as an
interpersonal monitor: The Sociometer Hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68(3), 518–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.518
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. (Undetermined). Quarterly Review of Distance
Education, 8(1), 9–88.
Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2018). Investigating students’ perceptions of instructional
strategies to establish social presence. Distance Education, 39(3), 281–298.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1476844
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.

115
Martin, F., & Ritzhaupt, A., Kumar, S., Budhrani, K., (2019). Award-winning faculty online
teaching practices: Elements of award-winning courses. Online Learning (Newburyport,
Mass.), 23(4), 160–180. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i4.2077
Martin, F., Ritzhaupt, A., Kumar, S., & Budhrani, K. (2019). Award-winning faculty online
teaching practices: Course design, assessment and evaluation, and facilitation. The
Internet and Higher Education, 42, 34–43. https//doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.04.001
Martin, F., Wang, C., & Sadaf, A. (2020). Facilitation matters: Instructor perception of
helpfulness of facilitation strategies in online courses. Online Learning, 24(1), 28–49.
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i1.1980
Masika, R., & Jones, J. (2016). Building student belonging and engagement: Insights into higher
education students’ experiences of participating and learning together. Teaching in
Higher Education, 21(2), 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1122585
Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
Means, D., & Pyne, K. (2017). Finding my way: Perceptions of institutional support and
belonging in low-income, first-generation, first-year college students. Journal of College
Student Development, 58(6), 907–924. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0071
Mellor, D., Stokes, M., Firth, L., Hayashi, Y., & Cummins, R. (2008). Need for belonging,
relationship satisfaction, loneliness, and life satisfaction. Personality and Individual
Differences, 45(3), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.020
Milem, J., & Berger, J. (1997). A modified model of college student persistence: Exploring the
relationship between Astin’s Theory of involvement and Tinto’s Theory of student
departure. Journal of College Student Development, 38(4), 387–400.

116
Moor, E. L., Denollet, J., & Laceulle, O. M. (2018). Social inhibition, sense of belonging, and
vulnerability to internalizing problems. Journal of Affective Disorders, 225, 207–213.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.08.034
Moore, M. J. (1993). Three types of interaction. K. Harry, M. John, & D. Keegan (Eds.),
Distance education theory (pp. 19–24). Routledge
Moore, M. J. (2018). Handbook of Distance Education (4th ed.). Taylor & Francis.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781315296111
Moschella, E. A., & Banyard, V. L. (2021). Short measures of interpersonal and university
mattering: Evaluation of psychometric properties. Journal of College Student
Development, 62(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2021.0004
Museus, S., Yi, V., & Saelua, N. (2017a). How culturally engaging campus environments
influence sense of belonging in college: An examination of differences between white
students and students of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education.
https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000069
Museus, S., Yi, V., & Saelua, N. (2017b). The impact of culturally engaging campus
environments on sense of belonging. Review of Higher Education, 40(2), 187–215.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0001
National Center for Education Statistics (2021).
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/search/ViewTable?tableId=33460
National Center for Education Statistics (2022).
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_502.30.asp

117
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (2018). Signature report 14 State Supplement:
Completing College-A State-Level View of Student Completion Rates.
https://nsresarchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/SnapshotReport33.pdf
National Survey of Student Engagement (2017). Engagement insights: Survey findings on the
quality of undergraduate education.
http://nsse.indiana.edu/NSSE_2017_Results/pdf/NSSE_2017_Annual_Results.pdf
Nyunt, G., O’Meara, K., Griffin, K. A., Kuvaeva, A. & Robinson, T. N. (2017). Sense of
belonging and its contributing factors in graduate education. International Journal of
Doctoral Studies, 12, 251–279.
https://doaj.org/article/f40283417931ca6b158fac615fd748
O’Keeffe, P. (2013). A sense of belonging: Improving student retention. College Student
Journal, 47(4), 605-613.
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/prin/csj/2013/00000047/00000004/art00005
Park, J. H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or
persist in online learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207–217.
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/74987/
Peacock, S., Cowan, J., Irvine, L., & Williams, J. (2020). An Exploration into the importance of
a sense of belonging for online learners. International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 21(2), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.4539
Phirangee, K., Epp, C. D., & Hewitt, J. (2016). Exploring the relationships between facilitation
methods, students’ sense of community, and their online behaviors. Online Learning
(Newburyport, Mass.), 20(2), 134–. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v20i2.775

118
Rendon, L. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Towards a new model of learning and
student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33-51.
Ribera, A., Miller, A., & Dumford, A. (2017). Sense of peer belonging and institutional
acceptance in the first year: The role of high-impact practices. Journal of College Student
Development, 58(4), 545–563. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0042
Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to
students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis.
Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001
Saba, F. (2016). Theories of Distance Education: Why They Matter. New Directions for Higher
Education, 2016(173), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20176
Schneiderman, N., Ironson, G., & Siegel, S. D. (2005). Stress and health: psychological,
behavioral, and biological determinants. Annual review of clinical psychology, 1, 607–
628. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.144141
Seider, S., Clark, S., & Soutter, M. (2015). A Critically conscious approach to fostering the
success of college students from underrepresented groups. Journal of College and
Character, 16(4), 253–262.
Shea, P., Pickett, A. M., & Peltz, W. E. (2019). A follow-up investigation of teaching presence in
the SUNY learning network. Online Learning, 7(2).
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v7i2.1856
Shea, P., Sau Li, C., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of
learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and
Higher Education, 9(3), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.iheduc.2006.06.005

119
Shea, P., Vickers, J., & Hayes, S. (2010). Online instructional effort measured through the lens
of teaching presence in the community of inquiry framework: A reexamination of
measures and approach. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 11, 127–154.http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl
Sheridan, K., & Kelly, M. (2010). The indicators of instructor presence that are important to
students in online courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4),
767–779. https://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no4/sheridan_1210.htm
Slaten, C. D., Ferguson, J. K., Allen, K.-A., Brodrick, D.-V., & Waters, L. (2016). School
Belonging: A Review of the History, Current Trends, and Future Directions. The
Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 33(1), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1017/edp.2016.6
Soria, K., & Stebleton, M. (2015). Social capital, academic engagement, and sense of belonging
among working-class college students. College Student Affairs Journal, 31(2), 139–153,
168–169. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1504176337/
Stebleton, M. J., Soria, K. M., & Huesman Jr, R. L. (2014). First-Generation Students’ Sense of
Belonging, Mental Health, and Use of Counseling Services at Public Research
Universities. Journal of College Counseling, 17(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-
1882.2014.00044.x
Stillman, T. F., Baumeister, R. F., Lambert, N. M., Crescioni, A. W., Dewall, C. N., & Fincham,
F. D. (2009). Alone and Without Purpose: Life Loses Meaning Following Social
Exclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 686–694.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.007

120
Strayhorn, T. L. (2019). College students’ sense of belonging: a key to educational success for
all students (2nd ed.). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315297293
Strayhorn, T.L. (2003). Analyzing the Short-Term Impact of a Brief Web-Based Intervention on
First-Year Students’ Sense of Belonging at an HBCU: A Quasi-Experimental Study.
Innovative Higher Education, 48, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-021-09559-5
Thomas, L., Herbert, J., & Teras, M. (2014). A sense of belonging to enhance participation,
success, and retention in online programs. The International Journal of the First Year in
Higher Education, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.5204/intjfyhe.v5i2.233
Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of Student Departure: Reflections on the Longitudinal Character of
Student Leaving. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(4), 438–455.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1988.11780199
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2012). Enhancing student persistence: Lessons learned in the United States. Análise
Psicológica, 24(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.14417/ap.148
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2021). https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau (2022).
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2022.S1501?q=Educational+Attainment
Van Orden, K. A., Witte, T. K., Cukrowicz, K. C., Braithwaite, S. R., Selby, E. A., & Joiner, T.
E. (2010). The Interpersonal Theory of Suicide. Psychological Review, 117(2), 575–600.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018697

121
Wightman, P., & Danziger, S. (2014). Multi-generational income disadvantage and the
educational attainment of young adults. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility,
35(March), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2013.09.004
Wilczyńska, A., Januszek, M., & Matusiewicz, K.B., (2015). The need of belonging and sense of
belonging versus effectiveness of coping. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 46(1), 72-81.
Zarifa, D., Kim, J., Seward, B., & Walters, D. (2018). What’s taking you so long? Examining the
effects of social class on completing a bachelor’s degree in four years. Sociology of
Education, 91(4), 290–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040718802258
Zumbrunn, S., McKim, C., Buhs, E., & Hawley, L. (2014). Support, belonging, motivation, and
engagement in the college classroom: A mixed method study. Instructional
Science, 42(5), 661–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9310-0

122
Appendix A: Information Sheet for Exempt Research
Research participants received the information sheet before the interview, including the
study's purpose, confidentiality management, and IRB contact details.
Post-secondary Distance Education: Cultivating Sense of Belonging Through Teaching
Presence
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Sylvia Pimentel, MSW,
principal investigator, and Patricia Tobey, PhD faculty advisor at the University of Southern
California. Please read the consent form and let me know your concerns or questions.
Key Information
The following is a summary of this study to help you decide whether to participate.
1. Being in this research study is voluntary - it is your choice.
2. You are asked to participate in this study because you are an online instructor.
3. You will receive a $15 compensation to thank you for your expertise and time.
Purpose
The study will examine the promotion of sense of belonging in distance education
through the community of inquiry’s framework in teaching presence and the need to belong
theory by Baumeister and Leary (1995), which stipulates that human beings have an innate need
to belong.
Procedure
If you decide to participate in this research study, you will be asked seven demographic
questions and 11 open-ended questions in a Zoom interview that will last approximately 45
minutes to one hour.

123
Privacy and Confidentiality
I will keep your records for this study confidential as permitted by law. Confidentiality
protocols are in place to safeguard your identity and interview content. With your permission, I
will record the interview. The management of privacy and confidentiality is per IRB guidelines.
Investigator Contact Information
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please contact Sylvia Pimentel
at sgpiment@usc.edu.
IRB Contact Information
The USC Institutional Review Board (IRB) will review this research proposal. The IRB
is a research review board that reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and
welfare of research participants. Contact the IRB if you have questions about your rights as a
research participant or complaints about the research (323) 442-0114 or irb@usc.edu.

124
Appendix B: Conceptual Framework Alignment
Table B1 shows the conceptual framework alignment with the interview questions, the
need to belong theory, and the Col model (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Garrison et al., 2000).
Table B1
Conceptual Framework Alignment
Research questions Conceptual frameworks Interview questions
What sense of belonging
strategies are utilized by
higher education online
instructors within the
Community of inquiry
model’s teaching presence?
The need to belong theory
Col model
1, 2, 3
What are the higher education
online instructor’s experiences
on how teaching presence
cultivates students’ sense of
belonging and well-being?
How do higher education
institutions support and
promote online instructors’
teaching presence?
The need to belong theory
Col model
Col model
4, 5, 6, 7
8, 9, 10

Note. The table demonstrates the alignment of the research and interview questions with the need
to belong theory and the Col model’s teaching presence element (Baumeister & Leary, 1995;
Garrison, et al., 2000).

125
Appendix C: Interview Questionnaire
The interview questionnaire included seven demographic questions and 11 interview
questions with related prompts.
Demographic Information
1. How long have you been an instructor? How many years have you been teaching
online?
2. What subject (s) do you teach?
3. How long have you been employed at your current institution?
4. What is your gender?
5. What is your ethnicity?
6. What is your notion regarding a definition of sense of belonging as it relates to
college students?
7. Within your institution, who or what department do you perceive to have a higher
degree of participation in cultivating sense of belonging with students? Please rank in
order if more than one.
Interview Questions
1. What strategies do you utilize to establish teaching presence?
Follow-up: Describe the effectiveness of the strategies in fostering sense of
belonging.
Prompt: Please provide an example.
Follow-up: Are there any strategies or activities that you prefer to use?
Prompt: Please provide an example or describe the strategies.
Follow-up: What strategies are not working to foster sense of belonging?

126
Prompt: Please provide an example or describe the strategies.
Follow-up: How often do you have contact with students throughout the semester
(i.e., feedback or meetings)?
2. How do you build an online community in your class?
Prompt: Can you please provide an example?
Follow-up: What do you find to be the least helpful in building an online
community?
Prompt: Can you please describe or provide an example?
3. What challenges have you experienced in fostering sense of belonging in a virtual
environment?
Prompt: Can you please provide an example?
Follow-up: How did you overcome the challenges you mentioned?
Prompt: Please provide an example or describe how you overcame the challenges.
4. Based on your experience, what are the best strategies you utilize for student
engagement?
Prompt: Can you provide an example of successful strategies?
Prompt: Can you provide an example of unsuccessful strategies?
5. How does teaching presence cultivate students’ sense of belonging?
Prompt: Can you please provide an example?
6. Are there instances that you find where teaching presence does not cultivate sense of
belonging with students?
Prompt: Can you please provide an example?
Prompt: What factors influence the lack of cultivation of sense of belonging?

127
Prompt: Can you please provide an example?
7. How do you think sense of belonging influences students’ well-being in a virtual
classroom setting?
Prompt: Can you please provide an example?
Follow-up: Are there instances where sense of belonging does not influence
students’ well-being?
Prompt: Can you please provide an example?
8. How does the institution support online instructors’ teaching presence?
Prompt: Can you please provide an example?
Prompt: Can you please provide an example where the institution has not
supported online instructors’ teaching presence?
9. How do institutional resources promote teaching presence?
Prompt: Can you please provide an example?
Prompt. Can you identify some of the resources that are not working to promote
teaching presence?
10. Tell me about any formal and informal professional development for online faculty.
Prompt: Can you give me a most helpful example?
Prompt: Can you give me an example that was the least helpful?
11. Is there anything else you would like to add to inform further the study that I did not
previously ask?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The virtual distance gap and extraneous in-person strategies challenge faculty to cultivate a sense of belonging with distance education post-secondary students. The qualitative phenomenological study examined teaching presence, an element of the community of inquiry (Col) model, and the need to belong theory as essential constructs in meeting students’ belonging needs in connection with the culturally engaging campus environments (CECE) model. Ten faculty members from 2- and 4-year institutions shared teaching presence strategies to cultivate belonging through faculty attributes, student-centered approaches, and communication presence. Faculty identified four primary challenges to belonging: course disengagement, personalizing virtual students, technology access, and the student’s home environment. Additional findings included the importance of diversified faculty roles, project and team-based learning, and a network and referral system to meet students’ needs. The teaching presence strategies promoted students’ well-being, inclusive of self-efficacy, mental health, and academic success. However, the faculty noted that the lack of teaching presence, the faculty’s equity-minded deficiencies, and the absence of humanization could harm belonging. While faculty indicated they were primarily responsible for fostering belonging due to frequent student contact, they concurred on the shared institutional agent responsibility. Consequently, institutional directives are essential to implement the faculty’s recommendations for required online certification and professional development for all staff on equity, diversity, and inclusion. Additional recommendations included a dedicated distance education department, a centralized belongingness digital center, and institutional endorsement of a culture of belonging for the teaching community.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Black male experience on a community college campus: a study on sense of belonging

PDF

Working-class social identity and sense of belonging in higher education: a mixed-methods study

PDF

Faculty experiences: sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students

PDF

Sense of belonging and inclusion among non-Christian students at Jesuit Catholic universities: a qualitative study

PDF

Improving first-generation students' sense of belonging at university

PDF

What makes a house a home: factors of influence for Black students' sense of belonging at a predominately White institution

PDF

Understanding Filipino student sense of belonging in a Hawaiʻi public school

PDF

Cultivating workplace belonging through managerial impact

PDF

Institutional support of FGLI undergraduates’ sense of belonging and persistence

PDF

Understanding the perceptions of Latine undocumented students' sense of belonging in higher education

PDF

“Black” workplace belonging: an examination of the lived experiences of Black faculty sense of belonging factors in community colleges

PDF

The impact of faculty interactions on online student sense of belonging: an evaluation study

PDF

Middle school counselors’ perceptions of their role supporting LGBTQ+ youths’ belonging

PDF

Sense of belonging among Black business students at a predominantly White institution

PDF

Belonging matters: exploring the impact of social connectedness on the academic success of immigrant and refugee children in the American school system

PDF

The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities

PDF

Sense of belonging in an online high school: looking to connect

PDF

The power of community-building circles (a restorative practice approach): fostering Black and Latino students’ sense of belonging

PDF

Examining the influence of new student orientation on graduate international students’ campus involvement, intent to persist, and sense of belonging

PDF

A new lens to examine and increase sense of belonging of Latin* students from postsecondary institutions in the midwestern United States

Asset Metadata

Creator Pimentel, Sylvia G. (author)

Core Title Post-secondary distance education: cultivating a sense of belonging through teaching presence

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 05/23/2024

Defense Date 08/31/2023

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag campus environments,culturally inclusive,Distance education,OAI-PMH Harvest,psychosocial stressors,sense of belonging,teaching presence

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Tiwana, Ravneet (committee member), Tynes, Brandesha (committee member)

Creator Email sgpiment@usc.edu,sylvia.usc93@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113956475

Unique identifier UC113956475

Identifier etd-PimentelSy-13016.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-PimentelSy-13016

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Pimentel, Sylvia G.

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240524-usctheses-batch-1161 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu