Home⇛International Journal of Transformative Multidisciplinary Studies⇛vol. 2 no. 2 (2026)

Learning Environment Challenges and their Influence on Student Motivation in Higher Education Settings

Jon Paul M. Reyes | Manuel T. Malabanan | Naren Chifamba

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

This systematic review examined how learning environment challenges influence student motivation in higher education institutions. Guided by the PRISMA framework, the study synthesized empirical evidence to identify key environmental factors shaping motivational outcomes. A comprehensive search of major databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, and Google Scholar focused on peer-reviewed studies published from 2020 to 2026. After screening and applying eligibility criteria, 15 studies were included in the narrative synthesis. Findings showed that learning environment challenges affect motivation across four interconnected domains: psychological and social conditions, instructor and institutional support, technological integration, and institutional adaptability. Psychological barriers such as limited interaction and low emotional safety reduce engagement and intrinsic motivation, while strong communication environments enhance motivation and learning outcomes. Instructor-related issues, including insufficient guidance and weak feedback, lower participation, whereas supportive teaching improves motivation and engagement. Technological challenges, such as poor usability and cognitive overload, further hinder sustained interest. Institutional factors like rigid policies and curriculum misalignment also negatively impact motivation. Overall, the findings highlight that student motivation is shaped by complex environmental systems. Supportive, flexible, and well-integrated learning environments are essential for promoting engagement, persistence, and academic success. Learning Environment Challenges and Student Motivation, IJTMS, 2 (2), 654-671, 2026 655



References:

  1. Bergdahl, N., Bond, M., Sjöberg, J., Dougherty, M., & Oxley, E. (2024). Unpacking student engagement in higher education learning analytics: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21, Article 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00493-y
  2. Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Marín, V. I., & Händel, M. (2021). Emergency remote teaching in higher education: Mapping the first global online semester. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18, Article 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00282-x
  3. Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8
  4. Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies and academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007
  5. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. (2018). CASP qualitative checklist. https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/
  6. Datu, J. A. D., & Valdez, J. P. M. (2016). Psychological capital predicts academic engagement and well-being in Filipino high school students. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(3), 399–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0254-1
  7. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
  8. Gao, Y., Wong, S. L., Khambari, M. N. M., Noordin, N. B., & Geng, J. (2022). Sustaining e-learning studies in higher education: An examination of scientific productions in Scopus between 2019 and 2021. Sustainability, 14(21), 14005. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114005
  9. Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, E. K. (2011). Online university students’ satisfaction and persistence: Examining perceived level of presence, usefulness and ease of use as predictors in a structural model. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1654–1663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.008
  10. Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197
  11. Lo, C. K., & Hew, K. F. (2017). A critical review of flipped classroom challenges in K–12 education: Possible solutions and recommendations for future research. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12, Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-016-0044-2
  12. Lu, H. (2020). Online learning: The meanings of student engagement. Education Journal, 9(3), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20200903.13
  13. Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
  14. Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12197
  15. Niez, R. A. (2024). Faculty experiences in publishing in Scopus-indexed journals: Challenges and strategies among higher education institutions in the Philippines. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 8(6), 4101–4115. https://doi.org/10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2900
  16. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., . . . Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  17. Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., Britten, N., Roen, K., & Duffy, S. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: A product from the ESRC Methods Programme. ESRC Methods Programme. https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/fhm/dhr/chir/NSsynthesisguidanceVersion1-April2006.pdf
  18. Roorda, D. L., Jak, S., Zee, M., Oort, F. J., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2017). Affective teacher–student relationships and students’ engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic update and test of the mediating role of engagement. School Psychology Review, 46(3), 239–261. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0035.V46-3
  19. Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., Morad, O. A., & Marsh, C. (2017). Computer-based technology and student engagement: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14, Article 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0063-0
  20. Shomotova, A., & Ibrahim, A. (2025). Higher education student engagement, leadership potential and self-perceived employability in the United Arab Emirates. Studies in Higher Education, 50(6), 1206–1232. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2367155
  21. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4
  22. Tarifa-Rodriguez, A., Virues-Ortega, J., & Calero-Elvira, A. (2025). The Behavioral Education in Social Media (BE-Social) Program for postgraduate academic achievement: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Behavioral Education, 34(3), 479–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-024-09545-9
  23. Wong, W. H., & Chapman, E. (2023). Student satisfaction and interaction in higher education. Higher Education, 85(5), 957–978. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00874-0

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic