Enhancing Student Engagement: An Empirical Study of Impacting Factors and TARGET-Based Intervention Among Electronic Commerce Students in China
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background and Aim: Student engagement is widely recognized as a critical determinant of academic achievement and learning effectiveness in higher education. In Chinese universities, however, traditional lecture-based instruction, large class sizes, and increasing digital distractions often limit students’ active participation and learning involvement. This study aims to identify the key factors influencing student engagement among university students and to examine the effectiveness of structured instructional interventions in enhancing engagement within higher education settings.
Materials and Methods: This study employed a mixed-methods research design focusing on undergraduate students majoring in e-commerce at a university in Yunnan Province, China. Quantitative data were collected through structured questionnaires measuring multiple dimensions of student engagement and related influencing factors. Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to identify significant predictors of engagement. Subsequently, a structured instructional intervention was implemented to improve engagement-related learning experiences. Qualitative data were gathered through pre- and post-intervention interviews to evaluate students’ perceptions and the effectiveness of the intervention strategies.
Results: The initial findings revealed that learning motivation, self-efficacy, and instructor interactivity had significant positive effects on student engagement. In contrast, active collaborative learning and student–student interaction demonstrated relatively limited influence under conventional instructional conditions. Following the implementation of the structured instructional intervention, all dimensions of student engagement—including previously non-significant factors—showed notable improvement. The intervention enhanced classroom participation, collaborative learning experiences, communication, and overall learning involvement among students.
Conclusion: The study highlights the important role of targeted pedagogical strategies and structured instructional design in promoting student engagement in higher education. The findings suggest that factors initially perceived as less influential can become effective when supported by intentional teaching interventions and interactive learning environments. This research provides empirical evidence supporting engagement-centered teaching practices and offers valuable implications for curriculum design, instructional innovation, and future intervention-based research in university education contexts.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright on any article in the International Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews is retained by the author(s) under the under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permission to use text, content, images, etc. of publication. Any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose. But do not use it for commercial use or with the intent to benefit any business.
References
Abed, L. G., Abed, M. G., & Shackelford, T. K. (2024). Does student-instructor interaction in universities influence academic attainment? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2173270
Abubakarı, M. S., Nurkhamıd, N., & Prıyanto, P. (2022). Factors influencing online learning engagement: International students’ perspective and the role of institutional support. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 23(3), 118–136. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.1137253
Afsar, B., & Umrani, W. A. (2020). Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior: The role of motivation to learn, task complexity, and innovation climate. European Journal of Innovation Management, 23(3), 402–428. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-12-2018-0257
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Bandura, A., & Wessels, S. (1997). Self-efficacy. Cambridge University Press.
Bedi, A. (2023). Keep learning: Student engagement in an online environment. Online Learning, 27(2), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i2.3461
Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernández-Ortega, B., & Sese, F. J. (2013). Using clickers in class: The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning, and engagement in learning performance. Computers & Education, 62, 102–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.019
Brophy, J. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational Leadership, 45(2), 40–48.
Buil, I., Catalán, S., & Martínez, E. (2020). Engagement in business simulation games: A self‐system model of motivational development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12852
Chan, S. C. H., Wan, C. L. J., & Ko, S. (2019). Interactivity, active collaborative learning, and learning performance: The moderating role of perceived fun by using personal response systems. The International Journal of Management Education, 17(1), 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2018.12.003
Chen, S.-Y., Su, Y.-S., Ku, Y.-Y., Lai, C.-F., & Hsiao, K.-L. (2024). Exploring the factors of students' intention to participate in AI software development. Library Hi Tech, 42(2), 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-12-2021-0480
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.
Chou, C. (2003). Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems: A technical framework for designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00326
Chung, E., Noor, N. M., & Mathew, V. N. (2020). Are you ready? An assessment of online learning readiness among university students. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 9(1), 301–317.
Cook, D. A., & Artino, A. R. (2016). Motivation to learn: An overview of contemporary theories. Medical Education, 50(10), 997–1014. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13074
Costley, J., Southam, A., Bailey, D., & Haji, S. A. (2022). How does the use of a learning management system mediate the relationships between learner interactions and learner outcomes? Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 19(2), 184–201. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-06-2021-0091
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer.
Ferrell, A. (2012). Classroom social environments, motivational beliefs, and student engagement [Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California].
Ferrer, J., Ringer, A., Saville, K., Parris, M. A., & Kashi, K. (2022). Students’ motivation and engagement in higher education: The importance of attitude to online learning. Higher Education, 83(2), 317–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00657-5
Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97–131). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_5
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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Frith, C. (1997). Motivation to learn. The Psychologist, 10(11), 505–510.
Gan, Y., Zhang, J., Wu, X., & Gao, J. (2024). Chain mediating effects of student engagement and academic achievement on university identification. SAGE Open, 14(1), 21582440241226903. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241226903
Guerra, A., Jiang, D., & Du, X. (2024). What does it mean to be engaged? The engagement of student engineers with sustainability: A literature review. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 25(9), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2023-0237
Gunawardena, C. N., Linder-VanBerschot, J. A., LaPointe, D. K., & Rao, L. (2010). Predictors of learner satisfaction and transfer of learning in a corporate online education program. The American Journal of Distance Education, 24(4), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2010.529889
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
Harasim, L. M. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In L. M. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 39–66). Praeger.
Heo, H., Bonk, C. J., & Doo, M. Y. (2021). Enhancing learning engagement during the COVID‐19 pandemic: Self‐efficacy in time management, technology use, and online learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(6), 1640–1652. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12603
Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful activities: The influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 43, 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020114231387
Keiler, L. S. (2018). Teachers’ roles and identities in student-centered classrooms. International Journal of STEM Education, 5, Article 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0131-6
Krause, K. L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in the first year of university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701698892
Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014). Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001
Kurucay, M., & Inan, F. A. (2017). Examining the effects of learner-learner interactions on satisfaction and learning in an online undergraduate course. Computers & Education, 115, 20–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.010
Laal, M., & Laal, M. (2012). Collaborative learning: What is it? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 491–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.092
Lai, C.-H., Lin, H.-W., Lin, R.-M., & Tho, P. D. (2019). Effect of peer interaction among online learning communities on learning engagement and achievement. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 17(1), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJDET.2019010105
Lam, S.-F., Wong, B. P. H., Yang, H., & Liu, Y. (2012). Understanding student engagement with a contextual model. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 403–419). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_19
Leach, L. (2016). Enhancing student engagement in one institution. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(1), 23–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2014.895305
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308223
Liu, T.-C., Liang, J.-K., Wang, H.-Y., Chan, T.-W., & Wei, L.-H. (2003). Embedding EduClick in the classroom to enhance interaction. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE) (pp. 117–121).
Liu, X., & Guo, J. (2021). Teacher support, interaction, engagement, and learning enjoyment in online EFL teaching. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 44(5), 34–42.
Ma, Z., Yan, X., & Wang, Q. (2020). Assessing individual contribution in collaborative learning through self- and peer-assessment in the context of China. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1532290
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
Maxwell-Stuart, R., & Huisman, J. (2018). An exploratory study of student engagement at transnational education initiatives: Proactive or apathetic? International Journal of Educational Management, 32(2), 298–309. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-03-2017-0059
McDonough, K., & Foote, J. A. (2015). The impact of individual and shared clicker use on students' collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 86, 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.009
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (3rd ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Ojo, A. O., Ravichander, S., Tan, C. N.-L., Anthonysamy, L., & Arasanmi, C. N. (2024). Investigating students’ motivation and online learning engagement through the lens of self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 16(5), 2185–2198. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-09-2023-0445
Okolie, U. C., Mlanga, S., Oyerinde, D. O., Olaniyi, N. O., & Chucks, M. E. (2022). Collaborative learning and student engagement in practical skills acquisition. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 59(6), 669–678.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1902293
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept, and school achievement. In R. Riding & S. Rayner (Eds.), Self-perception (pp. 239–266). Ablex Publishing.
Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 365–386). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_17
Pintrich, P. R. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
Qureshi, M. A., Khaskheli, A., Qureshi, J. A., Raza, S. A., & Yousufi, S. Q. (2023). Factors affecting students’ learning performance through collaborative learning and engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(4), 2371–2391. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2018613
Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032690
Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Schunk, D. H. (1984). Enhancing self-efficacy and achievement through rewards and goals: Motivational and informational effects. The Journal of Educational Research, 78(1), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1984.10885561
Schunk, D. H., & Miller, S. D. (2002). Self-efficacy and adolescents' motivation. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Academic motivation of adolescents (pp. 29–52). Information Age Publishing.
Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in a web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 102–120.
Siau, K., Sheng, H., & Nah, F.-H. (2006). Use of a classroom response system to enhance classroom interactivity. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(3), 398–403. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2006.879802
Simmering, M. J., Posey, C., & Piccoli, G. (2009). Computer self‐efficacy and motivation to learn in a self‐directed online course. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 7(1), 99–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2008.00207.x
So, H.-J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence, and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009
Sutcliffe, K. M., Vogus, T. J., & Dane, E. (2016). Mindfulness in organizations: A cross-level review. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 55–81. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062531
Tani, M., Gheith, M. H., & Papaluca, O. (2021). Drivers of student engagement in higher education: A behavioral reasoning theory perspective. Higher Education, 82(3), 499–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00647-7
Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/student-engagement-literature-review
Zhong, S. (2024). The effect of classroom teacher-student interaction characteristics and STEM teaching models on student creativity. SHS Web of Conferences, 193, 02009. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202419302009
