A strong sense of belonging is a core mechanism of student engagement and persistence in higher education (Strayhorn, 2012; Tinto, 2020; Kahu & Nelson, 2018). In distance education (DE), where everyday interaction is digitally mediated and spontaneous peer contact is scarce, how students develop belonging during their first-year remains underexplored (Hast, Habermann, & Trautwein, under review). This paper examines how first-year DE students interpret institutional, pedagogical and relational signals at study entry; how belonging is enacted, constrained or contested within sociomaterial learning environments; and how these processes unfold over time. 

Conceptually, we adopt a practice-based, sociomaterial and temporal lens that treats belonging as enacted through everyday interactions with platforms, course structures and institutional communication rather than as a stable trait. Drawing on transition-as-becoming (Gale & Parker, 2014) and Schlossberg’s transition model (2011), we frame belonging as an unfolding accomplishment sensitive to the timing, visibility and tone of institutional practices. 

Empirically, we report qualitative focus-group data from two German distance-learning programmes (one public, one private). We conducted 13 online focus groups via Zoom: nine “immersive” groups with first-year students and four “retrospective” groups with later-semester students reflecting on their first-year (N = 41; age 19–55; the majority employed and/or with caregiving responsibilities). A semi-structured guide covered motivations, early experiences, study–work–life integration, digital study practices, academic and social integration and supports and barriers. Transcripts were analysed inductively using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Ethical approval, informed consent and data-protection procedures were observed. 

Findings identify four interrelated patterns. First, organisational anchoring with social thinness: early belonging is enacted through successfully navigating platforms, procedures and timely institutional responses. Students often feel “connected to the university” without yet “feeling part of a student community”. Second, structural openness and absent shared boundaries: asynchronous, dispersed study rhythms and geographical dispersion complicate cohort perception and collective identification. Participants described flexibility as enabling access, but also as producing social indeterminacy early on. Third, from need to felt experience: in the first-year, belonging is articulated as an anticipated resource students desire but cannot readily realise. Over time it becomes a felt, motivating experience through accumulated interactions, often catalysed by informal peer spaces (Teams/WhatsApp) and visible pedagogical presence. Fourth, retrospective reconfiguration: students frequently recognise early non‑belonging only in hindsight, once later points of comparison exist, with belonging described as temporally delayed and narratively reconstructed. 

We conclude that belonging in DE is a fragile, sociomaterially mediated and temporally dynamic accomplishment. Early‑phase practice should prioritise institutional visibility and clarity (coherent onboarding; prompt, human‑toned communication), low‑threshold relational touchpoints and optional synchronisation (welcome messages, brief live check‑ins, time‑bounded discussions), plus coordinated standards across courses to avoid fragmented experiences Institutions should encourage teachers to signal presence in asynchronous settings and recognise indirect signs of isolation. For widening participation, belonging operates as a mediating mechanism between access and persistence; without intentional early‑phase design, DE’s structural openness risks reproducing inequalities. 

We adopted an interpretivist, practice-oriented design to elicit co-constructed accounts of how a sense of belonging is articulated, challenged and reinterpreted over time within sociomaterial settings. Online focus groups were used to generate interactional insight. The study was conducted at two German distance-learning programmes (one public, one private), enabling comparison across organisational contexts. Purposive sampling targeted DE students and sought to capture temporality by convening two types of groups: “immersive” groups with first-year students and “retrospective” groups with later-semester students reflecting on their first-year (Hast & Habermann, accepted for publication). Recruitment ran from October 2024 to June 2025 via learning management system announcements, Teams channels and course spaces. The final sample comprised 41 students across 13 focus-groups (nine immersive, four retrospective). To support equitable turn-taking in the online format, groups were intentionally small (two to four participants); the number of groups was increased to maintain information power. Participants were heterogeneous: ages ranged from 19 to 55, around 70% worked at least 11 hours per week and about 37% reported caregiving responsibilities, reflecting typical DE diversity. Focus-groups were held in Zoom and were video-recorded with consent and transcribed verbatim. A semi-structured topic guide covered motivations, early higher-education experiences, study–work–life integration, digital study practices, academic and social integration, perceived barriers and supports, and suggestions for improvement. Immersive groups focused on current experiences, whereas retrospective groups mapped how belonging developed across the first-year. Topics were informed by a prior scoping review on transition into distance education (Schweighart et al., 2024). The analysis followed reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). We coded all transcripts inductively and iteratively, developing themes that captured patterns in how belonging was enacted, constrained and temporally reconfigured. Credibility and transparency were supported through team-based analysis, reflexive memoing and an audit trail, and disconfirming evidence was used to refine theme boundaries. Ethical approval was granted by the institutional committee; informed consent was obtained from all participants and data were handled securely in line with German data-security standards.

Belonging in distance education during the first-year is not an automatic corollary of enrolment. It is a fragile, uneven and temporally delayed accomplishment that is initially anchored in organisational engagement rather than social embeddedness. DE’s structural openness—dispersed times, spaces and rhythms—enables access yet constrains early collective identification, rendering belonging thin and contingent. Over time, belonging can shift from an anticipated need to a felt, motivating experience through accumulated interactions, often enabled by informal peer channels and visible pedagogical presence. Crucially, students frequently recognise early non‑belonging only retrospectively, highlighting limits of early satisfaction metrics as indicators of successful transition. Implications follow at three levels. Course and programme design should foreground early institutional visibility and clarity (coherent onboarding; prompt, human-toned communication) and embed low-threshold relational touchpoints with optional synchronisation (welcome videos, brief live check-ins, time bounded discussions, cohort milestones). Staff development should treat belonging as pedagogical work, including signalling presence in asynchronous environments, normalising help-seeking and recognising indirect signs of isolation. At policy level, widening participation must go beyond flexible access to include intentional early-phase practices that reduce reliance on self-initiation. Otherwise, structural openness risks reproducing inequalities among students with fewer academic or digital resources. Treating belonging as a sociomaterial and temporal practice offers actionable pathways for institutions to nurture student potential and wellbeing in digitally mediated contexts.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Gale, T., & Parker, S. (2014). Navigating change: A typology of student transition in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 39(5), 734–753. Gourlay, L., & Oliver, M. (2018). Student engagement in the digital university: Sociomaterial assemblages. Routledge. Hast, M., & Habermann, S. (accepted for publication). TiDE und die (Ge)Zeiten: Warum sowohl immersive als auch retrospektive Ansichten für die Hochschulforschung wichtig sind. In S. Schaper, J. Lange, & S. Hofhues (Eds.), (Fern-)Studierende – Lebenswelten und Übergänge. Beltz. Hast, M., Habermann, S., & Trautwein, C. (under review). Negotiating belonging in distance education: A qualitative study of students’ transition experiences. Manuscript submitted for publication to the Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. 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 Schweighart, R., Hast, M., Pampel, A. M., Rebien, J. A., & Trautwein, C. (2024). Transition into distance education: A scoping review. Education Sciences, 14(10), 1130. Schlossberg, N. K. (2011). The challenge of change: The transition model and its applications. Journal of Employment Counseling, 48(4), 159–162. Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging. Routledge. Tinto, V. (2020). Learning better together. In A. Jones, A. Olds, & J. G. Lisciandro (Eds.), Transitioning students into higher education: Philosophy, pedagogy and practice (pp. 13–24). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429279355