Authors : Bilal Rafiq Shah

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 7 - July

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/2ye7djcr

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/y2ar3dmv

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25jul1805

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 30 to 40 days to display the article.

Abstract : The COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted traditional modes of higher education, forcing a rapid shift to online and hybrid learning environments. This sudden transformation exposed deep challenges in student engagement and the ability of both learners and educators to adapt to evolving instructional methods. In this context, cognitive flexibility— the mental ability to switch between thinking about different concepts and to adapt behavior in response to changing environments—emerged as a crucial factor influencing academic success. Equally important is student engagement, which encompasses behavioural, emotional, and cognitive involvement in learning processes. This study explores the interrelationship between cognitive flexibility and student engagement in post-pandemic higher education, aiming to identify teaching strategies that foster both qualities. Using a mixed-methods approach, data were collected from undergraduate and postgraduate students through standardized questionnaires and semi-structured interviews across diverse academic disciplines. Quantitative data were analysed using statistical correlation methods, while qualitative responses were examined thematically. Findings indicate a positive correlation between cognitive flexibility and higher levels of student engagement, especially in dynamic and participatory learning environments. Students who displayed greater cognitive flexibility adapted more effectively to new learning models and reported stronger motivation, focus, and interaction. The study concludes with evidence-based recommendations for reimagining teaching strategies, emphasizing active learning, adaptive instruction, and technology integration to promote resilience and responsiveness in post- pandemic academic settings.

Keywords : Cognitive Flexibility, Student Engagement, Higher Education, Teaching Strategies, Online Learning, Post-Pandemic Pedagogy.

References :

1. Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–13.
2. Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369–386.
3. Bao, W. (2020). COVID‐19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 113–115.
4. Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., ... & Paskevicius, M. (2020). A global outlook to the interruption of education due to COVID-19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1–126.
5. Canas, J. J., Quesada, J. F., Antolí, A., & Fajardo, I. (2003). Cognitive flexibility and adaptability to environmental changes in dynamic complex problem-solving tasks. Ergonomics, 46(5), 482–501.
6. CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Wakefield, MA: CAST.
7. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
8. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
9. Dennis, J. P., & Vander Wal, J. S. (2010). The cognitive flexibility inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34(3), 241–253.
10. Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5–22.
11. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168.
12. 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.
13. Garris, C. P., & Fleck, B. (2020). Student evaluations of transitioned-online courses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 6(4), 247–261.
14. Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 184–192.
15. Huang, R. H., Liu, D. J., Tlili, A., Yang, J. F., & Wang, H. H. (2021). Handbook on facilitating flexible learning during educational disruption. UNESCO and Smart Learning Institute of Beijing Normal University.
16. Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education., Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758–773
17. (Kahu, 2013).
18. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
19. Martin, A. J., & 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.
20. Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychological Reports, 76(2), 623–626.
21. Papaleotiou-Louca., (2003). The concept and instruction of Metacognition., Teacher Development: An International Journal of Teachers' Professional Development. Volume 7(1), 9-30.
22. Scott, W. A. (1962). Cognitive Complexity and Cognitive Flexibility. Sociometry, 25, 405-414.
23. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24. Zelazo, P. D. (2015). Executive function: Reflection, iterative reprocessing, complexity, and the developing brain. Developmental Review, 38, 55–68. Elsiever.