Traditional campus-based education has historically fostered more than just cognitive learning; it has nurtured students’ social identities through face-to-face interactions, collective experiences, and immersive engagement in academic communities. Such environments enable personal development facets like goal-directedness, interpersonal relations, and self-acceptance to evolve within a shared physical context. However, with the rise of OLEs, these foundational aspects are being reshaped under new conditions that prioritize digital communication, asynchronous learning, and virtual interfaces. This study meticulously investigates these dynamics, deploying Propensity Score Matching (PSM) to rigorously compare identity constructs in offline versus online settings, avoiding confounding factors and providing clarity on true environmental effects.

The researchers discovered notable gaps in identity construction between offline and online contexts. Specifically, students engaged in online learning exhibited lower levels of goal-directedness—a faculty essential for setting clear academic objectives and maintaining focus over time. Moreover, interpersonal relations, a critical channel for peer support, mentoring, and collaborative learning, were found to be attenuated in the online environment. Self-acceptance, reflecting students’ recognition and embrace of their capabilities and limitations, also diminished in virtual settings. These findings suggest that while OLEs offer unparalleled convenience and accessibility, they may inadvertently hinder the psychological scaffolding necessary for robust academic identity construction.

Further analysis employed ordinary least squares regression to determine how variations in identity traits influence achievement motivation—a key predictor of academic success. The regression outcomes indicated that student agency—the capacity to act independently and make informed choices—played a pivotal role in motivating achievement across both learning modes. Additionally, the online learning environment itself, alongside higher frequencies of academic digital device usage, exhibited statistically significant effects on students’ intrinsic drive to excel. This highlights an intricate feedback mechanism where students’ engagement strategies and technological immersion interact to shape motivation trajectories in profound ways.

Beyond the quantitative results, the study offers important pedagogical implications. Educators and institutions seeking to optimize learning outcomes in online modalities must consider interventions that foster identity elements weakened in virtual contexts. Innovative strategies could include structured peer interaction modules, goal-setting workshops tailored for virtual learners, and digital platforms promoting self-reflection and personal growth. Establishing inclusive and supportive online environments that actively cultivate these identity dimensions is crucial to ensuring equitable academic opportunities and sustained student success.

The cultural specificity of this study, conducted within the Chinese educational system, represents a critical contextual factor. Given divergent educational norms, values, and technologies worldwide, caution is necessary when generalizing these findings. Cross-cultural research is imperative to validate whether the observed identity discrepancies and motivational patterns hold true in diverse academic cultures or if unique local adaptations are warranted. Such inquiries would further elucidate the culturally contingent nature of digital education and student identity formation.

Methodologically, the reliance on self-reported survey data introduces the possibility of sampling bias and accuracy concerns. While large-scale quantitative analyses offer broad insights, complementing these with longitudinal designs and qualitative interviews could provide richer, more nuanced understanding. Future research might, for example, track individual identity development over multiple semesters of online and offline learning or conduct in-depth case studies to capture lived experiences. These mixed-method approaches promise to reduce uncertainties and deepen the evidence base.

The investigation faced challenges with certain survey sections, such as measurements of personal responsibility and self-efficacy, which did not yield valid results despite being established constructs in Western educational research. This discrepancy may arise from cultural differences influencing how students interpret and respond to such items, highlighting an often-overlooked dimension of validity when applying standardized questionnaires across cultures. Addressing this issue requires the development of culturally sensitive instruments that reflect localized educational philosophies and student worldviews, enhancing the precision and applicability of identity research.

Another limitation identified is the lack of granular analysis regarding how students’ demographic and academic characteristics influence identity construction. Variables such as gender, age, and fields of study were controlled as covariates during PSM but not examined individually. Exploring these factors could reveal important subgroup differences, shedding light on nuanced identity patterns and informing targeted educational interventions. Employing techniques like two-sample t-tests or difference-in-differences designs may enrich future studies with these insights.

This research significantly advances the discourse on educational transformation by systematically highlighting how online learning environments reshape the fundamental construction of student identities and thereby affect motivation. As digital education becomes a permanent fixture, understanding and strategically addressing these identity shifts will be paramount for educators, policymakers, and educational technologists alike. This study’s robust analytical approach serves as a foundation for evolving more empathetic, effective, and culturally attuned pedagogical models suited for the realities of 21st-century learning.

The findings resonate beyond academia, touching broader societal questions about the role of technology in shaping human development amidst contemporary digitalization trends. The interplay between identity and motivation in educational settings provides striking parallels to workforce training, social media engagement, and lifelong learning, where motivation and self-conception are equally critical. Thus, insights from this study bear relevance for multiple sectors grappling with integration into an increasingly virtualized world.

In conclusion, the study illuminates the subtle yet profound ways that the shift from offline to online learning environments can reshape college students’ identities, with considerable implications for their academic motivation and success. It calls for adaptive and culturally grounded pedagogies that elevate the psychological and social dimensions of learning alongside cognitive achievement. This holistic outlook is essential as educators worldwide seek to harness technology’s potential while preserving the human essence of education.

As educational institutions continue navigating the delicate balance between in-person and digital instruction, such research underscores the imperative to maintain students’ holistic development. Fostering robust identity construction via intentional online strategies is not merely an educational enhancement—it is a necessity for preparing learners to thrive amid evolving academic and professional landscapes shaped by pervasive digital transformation.

This paradigm shift challenges existing educational frameworks, demanding renewed collaborations among researchers, practitioners, and learners themselves to co-create online learning ecosystems that empower, motivate, and nurture the multidimensional identities of students. Only through such collaborative innovation can the promise of digital education be fully realized equitably and sustainably in the decades ahead.

Subject of Research:
College students’ identity differences between offline and online learning environments and their effects on academic achievement motivation.

Article Title:
College students’ identity differences in offline and online learning environment and their effects on achievement motivation.

Article References:
Lee, SS., Kim, J., Yu, S.W. et al. College students’ identity differences in offline and online learning environment and their effects on achievement motivation. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1579 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05891-9

Image Credits: AI Generated

At the heart of this exploration lies Bourdieu’s theory of cultural reproduction, a critical lens through which the reproduction of social structures via education is understood. Bourdieu argued that educational institutions do not simply serve as neutral platforms for intellectual enhancement; rather, they act as agents of “symbolic violence.” This concept refers to the subtle imposition of the dominant class’s cultural norms and capital within educational fields, which results not in the breaking down but the reinforcement of existing social hierarchies. In higher education, this process manifests through the transmission of academic cultural capital—knowledge, credentials, networks—that doctoral supervisors impart to their students.

Fundamental to Bourdieu’s framework are the interrelated concepts of field, habitus, and capital. The “field” represents a structured social space—in this context, the realm of academic research and doctoral supervision—where individuals occupy positions defined by varying degrees of power and capital. Doctoral supervisors typically hold dominant positions in this field due to their accumulated academic capital, which permits them to set the rules, norms, and expectations that govern successful academic practice. Students, positioned lower in this hierarchy, navigate this field’s constraints as they acquire the necessary academic cultural capital.

Capital, as Bourdieu described, extends beyond mere economic wealth and encompasses cultural and social resources that carry value within a given field. This study effectively adapts the conventional notion of capital to the academic environment, differentiating between academic cultural capital and academic social capital. Academic cultural capital comprises not only formal credentials such as diplomas—which Bourdieu termed institutionalized cultural capital—but also the embodied dispositions like research skills, theoretical understanding, and scholarly habits, as well as the objectified cultural goods such as published works. Academic social capital involves networks and reputations that grant access to academic resources and communities.

The process of guidance in doctoral supervision, from this perspective, is the intergenerational transmission of these forms of capital. Supervisors, armed with extensive academic capital accumulated through years of scholarship and professional networking, act as gatekeepers and mentors who transmit this capital to their students. This transmission is neither neutral nor egalitarian. Instead, it can be conceptualized as a form of symbolic violence, wherein the supervisor’s values, academic style, and expectations shape the student’s habitus—the internalized dispositions, cognitive schemas, and practices that constitute their academic identity.

Habitus, a central Bourdieuian construct, captures the lasting psychological and behavioral tendencies formed through one’s social and educational context. Doctoral students’ habitus is influenced by their previous experiences and family background but is also profoundly reshaped during their academic socialization. The supervisor-student relationship acts as a crucible for this transformation as students navigate expectations and internalize the norms necessary for their integration into the academic community. This internalization is critical in the development of a doctoral candidate’s self-concept and their assumed role within the academic field.

The study nuances the negotiation process in supervisory interactions, highlighting the asymmetry inherent in power relationships. Supervisors, possessing superior academic capital and thus commanding greater influence within the field, often impose disciplinary norms and academic standards that students must adopt to succeed. This dynamic creates a tension between obedience and imitation on the one hand, and the student’s hope and attempts to shape their unique academic habitus on the other. Students may comply, adapt, or attempt to resist, but their behavior is profoundly shaped by the structural conditioning of the academic field.

Moreover, supervisory relationships are not purely shaped by objective academic capital but also by interpersonal and social dynamics that contribute to academic social capital. A student’s reputation, the quality of their academic network, and their connection to ongoing scholarly conversations are critical assets that supervisors help cultivate. These relationships extend beyond immediate research projects to include journal contacts, collaborative opportunities, and peer networks, which collectively enhance the student’s academic social standing and career prospects.

The interaction between habitus and capital in this academic field further reveals the intricacies of social reproduction within higher education. Doctoral supervisors are not merely educators but active agents in maintaining or challenging the established order of the academic field. Their role involves navigating the dual responsibility of transmitting established academic norms and fostering the individual growth of students as emerging scholars. This delicate balance often situates students in a challenging space—expected to internalize dominant habits while simultaneously carving a niche for their intellectual originality.

An essential insight from this research lies in the recognition that academic supervision is not only a pedagogical or intellectual exercise but also an inherently social and political process. The unequal distribution of academic capital implies that some doctoral students enter their programs at a structural disadvantage, given their family backgrounds or prior educational experiences. The field thus operates as a site of both opportunity and constraint, where success is mediated by the compatibility between the student’s habitus and the academic expectations imposed by supervisors and institutional culture.

This study’s interdisciplinary approach bridges sociology, education, and higher education studies, employing Bourdieu’s complex theories to unpack the subtle mechanisms of academic socialization. By focusing on the micro-level of supervisory interactions, it discloses the broad macrostructural processes that perpetuate academic hierarchies and social stratification. In doing so, it challenges the meritocratic myths that often surround higher education and doctoral training, revealing persistent inequalities embedded within academic cultures.

The implications for doctoral education are profound. If academic cultural and social capital is unequally distributed and reproduced through supervisory relationships, then efforts to democratize higher education and broaden participation must address these deep-rooted mechanisms. Interventions that merely focus on improving student skills without recognizing the structural forces of symbolic violence and social reproduction risk perpetuating existing inequalities. Enhancing awareness among supervisors and institutions of their role in this process can open pathways toward more equitable mentorship practices.

Furthermore, the notion of habitus as a mutable but lasting disposition suggests that transformative educational environments are possible, but they require intentional efforts to support doctoral students’ identity formation beyond rote compliance. Encouraging reflexivity and critical engagement with academic norms can empower students to shape their habitus in ways that align with their intellectual passions and social values, fostering genuine innovation and academic diversity.

This research also points to the need for expanding definitions of academic capital to acknowledge diverse forms of knowledge, cultural expressions, and social connections that might exist outside traditional academic canons. Recognizing the multifaceted nature of capital could help in valuing different scholarly voices and styles, contributing to a richer and less exclusionary academic culture.

In sum, the supervisory relationship emerges from this study not merely as a conduit for academic guidance but as an arena in which power, capital, and habitus intersect to reproduce or challenge the social order within academia. Through the lens of cultural reproduction theory, doctoral students’ journeys are spotlighted as profound processes of social and cultural negotiation that extend well beyond the confines of the dissertation itself.

By illuminating these complex dynamics, this research invites universities, policymakers, and academic communities to rethink doctoral education. Valuing equitable distribution of academic capital and fostering habitus transformation stand out as critical steps in nurturing diverse, empowered scholars capable of both participating in and reshaping the academic field.

Subject of Research: Supervisory interactions and the academic cultural (re)production of doctoral students through the lens of Bourdieu’s theory of cultural reproduction.

Article Title: Obeying, following, imitating, and hoping to shape the academic habitus: Supervisory interactions and doctoral students’ academic cultural (re)production.

Article References:
Li, J., Xue, E., He, Y. et al. Obeying, following, imitating, and hoping to shape the academic habitus: Supervisory interactions and doctoral students’ academic cultural (re)production. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1432 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05735-6

Image Credits: AI Generated