The Impact of Social Network Engagement-Based Design Features on the Effectiveness of e-Learning Platforms
Abstract
Billions of people use one or more social networking applications, such as Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook, on a daily basis. The amount of time that people of all ages spend on these platforms has reached unprecedented levels. Social networking applications have fundamentally transformed the ways in which people communicate, collaborate, work, and socialize, exerting an unprecedented influence on everyday life. User engagement is widely regarded as a major indicator of social network platforms' success because it enhances user retention, supports growth, and provides insights. The concept of user engagement is therefore central to understanding the rapid growth and widespread popularity of social networking applications. Several factors may explain engagement behavior. One potentially important factor is the specific architectural design features implemented by software engineers to attract, and retain users, and to encourage prolonged use. In this paper, we draw on the DeLone and McLean (1992) Information Systems Success Model to develop genuine research propositions. We aim to examine how social networks design features associated with intensive user engagement may influence users' behavior in the educational environment. We argue that incorporating selected engagement-oriented design features into online learning systems, when implemented appropriately and ethically, may increase learner engagement and potentially improve learning effectiveness. We also argue that the higher the user's IT self-efficacy the more engaged they would be.
Downloads
References
DeLone. WH and McLean. ER (1992) Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research 3 (1), 60–95.
West and Jones (2006) Sociology of Health & Illness (Volume 29, Issue 2, pages 198–215)
Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, and Hayek (2007) “Piecing Together the Student Success Puzzle: Research, Propositions, and Recommendations” 32 (5), the ASHE Higher Education Report series
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–32.
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
Igbaria, M., & Iivari, J. (1995) . The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. Omega, 23(6), 587–605.
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451–481.
Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85–102.
Glanville, J. L., & Wildhagen, T. (2007). The measurement of school engagement: Assessing dimensionality and measurement invariance across race and ethnicity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(6), 1019–1041.
Henrie, C. R., Bodily, R., Larsen, R., & Graham, C. R. (2018). Exploring the potential of LMS log data as a proxy measure of student engagement. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(2), 344–362
Prakasha, S. G., Pramod Kumar MPM, & Srilakshmi, R. (2023). Student engagement in online learning during COVID-19. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 19(1), 1–12.
Simmering, M. J., Posey, C., & Piccoli, G. (2009). Computer self-efficacy and motivation to learn in a self-directed online course. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 7(1), 99–121.
Wang, Q. (2025). Re-discover student engagement from the perspective of definition and influencing factors. Frontiers in Psychology, 15.
West, E., & Jones, P. (2007). A framework for planning technology used in teacher education programs that serve rural communities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 26(4), 3-15.
Webber, K. L., Krylow, R. B., & Zhang, Q. (2013). Does involvement really matter? Indicators of college student success and satisfaction. Journal of College Student Development, 54(6), 591–611
Smith L (2026) Instagram v. Reality: The Case for Regulating Adolescent Social Media Use. 52(2), 262-287.
Nelson Laird, T. F., Seifert, T. A., Pascarella, E. T., Mayhew, M. J., & Blaich, C. F. (2014). Deeply affecting first-year students’ thinking: Deep approaches to learning and three dimensions of cognitive development. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(3), 402–432.
"Attentional Harms and Digital Inequalities" in JMIR Mental Health in February 2022. [1]
Dwivedi,A ; Dwivedi, P; Bobek, S; (2019) “Factors affecting students’ engagement with online content in blended learning”, Kybernetes (2019) 48 (7): 1500–1515.
Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24, 665-694.
Copyright (c) 2026 Hafid Agourram
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
