How students deal with academic demands is well researched in campus-based contexts. Work on self-regulated learning and on stress, appraisal and coping suggests that students actively plan, monitor and regulate cognition, behaviour and emotion in response to these demands (Zimmerman, 2008; Pintrich, 2004; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Panadero, 2017). Evidence also exists on self‑regulated learning strategies in online higher education (Broadbent & Poon, 2015). In distance education (DE), the transition into higher education is widely seen as critical for subsequent study success (Trautwein & Bosse, 2017) and is associated with multifaceted challenges such as getting used to and finding one’s way in distance learning, developing self-learning skills, balancing various commitments, and establishing and maintaining social contacts with peers, alongside limited student interaction (Brown et al., 2015; Schweighart et al., 2024; Trautwein et al., in preparation). While recent reviews synthesise interventions to strengthen self-regulated learning in first-year students (Simón‑Grábalos et al., 2025), we know less about which self-regulated coping strategies first-year DE students report assembling in response to critical transition requirements, and which institutional and sociomaterial conditions make these strategies workable. 

We conceptualise self‑regulated coping as students’ purposeful cognitive, behavioural, emotional and social regulation aimed at managing perceived transition requirements, uncertainty and constraints during the early period. While much research on the transition into distance education has focused on challenges and barriers, our focus goes beyond cataloguing challenges to tracing students’ agentic, coping strategies and the conditions that enable or hinder strategy use. Whereas prior work focuses on designed interventions to improve self‑regulated learning (Simón‑Grábalos et al., 2025), we examine the strategies students themselves assemble in situ. We address two questions: (RQ1) (RQ1) Which self‑regulated coping strategies do first‑year DE students report using to manage critical transition requirements? (RQ2) Which sociomaterial and institutional conditions (e.g., platform affordances, resource visibility, staff presence, peer infrastructures) enable or constrain these strategies? 

Data were collected through thirteen online focus groups at two German DE programmes (one public, one private) with 41 undergraduates (aged 19–55; most employed and/or with caring responsibilities). Transcripts were analysed inductively using qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2022). The semi‑structured guide drew on TiDE evidence on transition challenges/requirements (Schweighart et al., 2024; Trautwein et al., in preparation). Coding centred on “requirement episodes” and linked (a) the requirement/challenge described, (b) the coping strategies students reported using, and (c) enabling or constraining conditions referenced. 

Preliminary analysis indicates four clusters of coping strategies. (1) Temporal structuring and workload design: pacing heuristics (‘one module per month’), micro-scheduling (‘one lesson per day’), time-blocking and exam-period prioritisation; they sequence modules strategically to sustain motivation. (2) Resource curation and self-help: systematically mine learning management system (LMS) FAQs, explainer videos and course discussion threads (e.g., in Microsoft Teams); attendance at synchronous learning sessions; personal knowledge bases; reliance on recordings when live attendance is infeasible. (3) Help-seeking and peer mobilisation: selecting responsive tutors, overcoming reluctance to ask questions, and leveraging small peer groups for explanation and motivation. (4) Emotion/load regulation and contingency management: workshops addressing overwhelm and motivation, deliberate pace adjustments, avoiding overload-inducing live events, deadline flexibility in bottlenecks, and—under acute strain—formal leave. Across clusters, students combine multiple strategies and often routinise them over time. Strategy workability appears conditional on the timely visibility of resources, prompt and personal staff responses, and accessible, low-threshold peer infrastructures. 

We present preliminary findings and derive provisional implications at course/programme, staff and policy levels, outlining where institutional design may strengthen students’ capacity for self-regulated coping in digitally mediated environments. 

This study used online qualitative focus groups to gather co-constructed accounts of how first-year distance education students handle the demands of entering higher education. Two German distance learning programmes (one public, one private) participated. Undergraduate students were purposively recruited between October 2024 and June 2025 via learning management system (LMS) announcements, Microsoft Teams channels and course spaces. To capture temporality, we ran ‘immersive’ groups with first and second-semester students and ‘retrospective’ groups with later-semester students reflecting on their first year. In total, 41 students took part across thirteen deliberately small groups (two to four participants) to support turn-taking and depth of discussion in the online format. Participants varied in age (19–55), employment (about 70% worked ≥11 hours/week) and caregiving (about 37%). Programmes were mainly in education and social sciences. Sessions (60–90 minutes) were conducted on Zoom, recorded with consent and transcribed verbatim. The semi-structured guide—developed with reference to a scoping review on the transition into distance education (Schweighart et al., 2024)—covered motivations, early experiences, study–work–life integration, digital study practices, academic and social integration, supports and barriers and coping. A dedicated coping module elicited concrete “requirements episodes” (“You mentioned several challenges. How did you deal with these?”) and probed enabling conditions and gaps (“Did you use institutional support—if so, which, if not, why not?”; “What remains unresolved?”; “What else would have helped?”). Two researchers attended each session (moderation; observation/technical support). Analysis followed qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2022) with inductive category development. The unit of analysis was a requirement episode—any passage describing a perceived transition requirement/challenge and the associated coping strategies students reported using. We use the term coping strategies to refer to the cognitive, behavioural, emotional and social actions that students reported using to manage a perceived transition requirement. Through iterative coding, we derived TiDE-aligned transition requirement types (e.g., orientation and finding one’s way in distance learning; managing information and platform overload; balancing various commitments; developing self-learning/self-organisation skills; establishing and maintaining peer contacts; navigating study administration and technical problems; dealing with assessment feedback and exam logistics)and, for each episode, coded the strategies used (for example time-blocking, micro-scheduling, resource curation, peer micro-communities, help-seeking scripts, feedback use, emotion regulation, contingency management), tools and perceived outcomes. Emergent requirement types were grouped into higher-order families for reporting clarity. Ethical approval, informed consent, anonymisation and secure data storage were ensured.

Our emerging analysis suggests that coping with the critical demands of distance education in the first year is a situated, multilevel accomplishment rather than a fixed trait. Students assemble portfolios of strategies that can develop from ad hoc reactions into more routinised practices across four interlinked areas: temporal structuring, resource use and self-help, help-seeking and peer mobilisation, and emotion/load regulation including contingency management. These strategies appear agentic yet conditional. Their effectiveness seems to hinge on the timely visibility of institutional resources, prompt and personal staff responses, and accessible, low-threshold peer infrastructures. As the analysis is ongoing, findings are preliminary; full analysis will be completed in summer 2026.At programme and course level, principles include foregrounding early visibility and coherence of support, helping students recognise when and how to use of available resources, and offering opportunities for connection that do not undermine flexibility. For staff development, tentative priorities include equipping staff to signal presence in asynchronous settings, normalising help-seeking and notice indirect indicators of overload. From an equity perspective, a recurring concern is to reduce reliance on students’ preexisting social, academic or digital capital so that effective coping does not depend on prior advantage. Overall, persistence in distance education depends not only on access and flexibility but on whether students can enact effective self‑regulated coping early on. Making support visible, responsive and easy to use can turn fragile starts into sustainable study routines.

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 Brown, M., Hughes, H., Keppell, M., Hard, N., & Smith, L. (2015). Stories from students in their first semester of distance learning. IRRODL, 16(4), 1–17. Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2022). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung (5th ed.). Beltz Juventa. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer. Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422 Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x 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. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101130 Simón-Grábalos, D., Fonseca, D., Aláez, M., Romero-Yesa, S., & Fresneda-Portillo, C. (2025). Systematic review of the literature on interventions to improve self-regulation of learning in first-year university students. Education Sciences, 15(3), 372. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15030372 Trautwein, C., & Bosse, E. (2017). The first year in higher education—Critical requirements from the student perspective. Higher Education, 73(3), 371–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0098-5 Trautwein, C., Hast, M., Habermann, S., Rebien, J., Le, K., & Hoffmann, R. (in preparation). Transition into distance education: Navigating initial challenges to unlock educational potential. Manuscript in preparation. Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909