Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 24 no. 4 (2024)

Technology-Based Instruction and Motivated Learning Strategies as Predictor of Student Engagement in Araling Panlipunan

Analyn Jose | Maedel Joy Escote

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

The primary purpose of this study is to investigate the significance of the combined influence of Technology-Based Instruction and Motivated Learning Strategies on student engagement in Araling Panlipunan. A survey was conducted to a sample of 124 Grade 6 students from selected elementary schools in the municipality of Mawab, Davao de Oro. A quantitative descriptive correlation method was used in the study. The results of the study indicated that integrating technology-based instruction with motivated learning strategies positively influenced student engagement by enhancing interactive learning experiences and fostering intrinsic motivation. From the results of the study, it was recommended that school should provide teachers the resources and training they need to use technology and motivate students successfully and teachers should embrace technology and student motivation as significant tools for teaching. Furthermore, continued integration of these approaches in Araling Panlipunan could sustain and enhance student engagement.



References:

  1. Abdulsalam, S. I., & Shiring, E. J. (2022). The Relationship between Educators' Attitudes, Perceived Usefulness, and Perceived Ease of Use of Instructional and Web-Based Technologies: Implications from Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). International journal of technology in education. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.285
  2. Alamsyah, D. P., Setyawati, I., & Rohaeni, H. (2022, September). New technology adoption of E-learning: Model of perceived usefulness. In 2022 3rd International Conference on Big Data Analytics and Practices (IBDAP) (pp. 79-84). IEEE.
  3. Alexander, C., McCormick, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2013). Student engagement: Bridging research and practice to improve the quality of undergraduate education. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (pp. 47-92). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5836-0_2
  4. Alexander, P. A., Murphy, P. K., Woods, B. S., Duhon, K. E., & Parker, D. (1997). College instruction and concomitant changes in students' knowledge, interest, and strategy use: A study of domain learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(2), 125-146. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0927
  5. Alia, W.M., Arceño, R.A. & Babker, A.M.A., 2019. Students’ Contextualization on Technology Use in Learning. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research, 48(7), pp. 208-215.
  6. Allman, B., Kimmons, R., Rosenberg, J., & Dash, M. (2023). Trends and Topics in Educational Technology, 2023 Edition. TechTrends, 67(3), 583-591.
  7. Amen, E. (2018). Self-efficacy. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1-4). Springer.
  8. Andre, N., Benhenda, A., Briere, N. M., Florindo, J., Agrinier, N., Fortin, A., ... & Léger, D. (2018). Cognitive and motivational physical exercise interventions in older adults: A systematic review. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 75, 149-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2018.01.001
  9. Ankiewicz, P. (2018). Perceptions and attitudes of students towards technology: in search of a rigorous theoretical framework. International Journal of Technology Design and Education, 29, 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9434-z
  10. Arain, A. A., Hussain, Z., Rizvi, W. H., & Vighio, M. S. (2017). An analysis of the influence of a mobile learning application on the learning outcomes of higher education students. Universal Access in the Information Society, 2, 1–10.
  11. Araujo Dawson, B., Kilgore, W., & Rawcliffe, R. M. (2022). Strategies for creating inclusive learning environments through a social justice lens. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 12, 2.
  12. Baker S., Gersten R., Scanlon D. (2002). Procedural facilitators and cognitive strategies: Tool for unraveling the mysteries of comprehension and the writing process, and for providing meaningful access to the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 17(1), 65–77.
  13. Bandura, A., Cervone, D., Dori, S., Ginsberg, C. M., Koloff, P., Lange, L., ... & Zimmerman, B.J. (1991). What self-regulated learners do. Educational psychology review, 3(2), 101-129.
  14. Bejrajh, V. & Themane, M., 2022. Using Smartphones in Teaching English to Secondary School Students in South Africa. Interdisciplinary Journal of Education Research, Volume 4, pp. 76-90
  15. Bernackia, M. L., Greenea, J. A., & Crompton, H. (2020). Mobile technology, learning, and achievement: Advances in understanding and measuring the role of mobile technology in education.    Contemporary    Educational    Psychology,    60,    101827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101827
  16. Bernard, J. S. (2015). Student engagement: A principle-based concept analysis. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 12(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijnes- 2014-0058
  17. Bhandari, P. (2021). Correlational Research | When & How to Use. Scribbr
  18. Blau, I., Shamir-Inbal, T. & Avdiel, O. (2020). How does the pedagogical design of a technology-enhanced collaborative academic course promote digital literacies, self- regulation, and perceived learning of students? The Internet and Higher Education, 45, 100722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100722
  19. Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Buntins, K., Kerres, M., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2020). Facilitating student engagement in higher education through educational technology: A narrative systematic review in the field of education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(2), 315-368.
  20. Brown, L., & Davis, S. (2018). The Impact of Peer Interaction on Student Learning Outcomes. Educational Research Review, 30(4), 267-280.
  21. Bye, D., Pushkar, D., & Conway, M. (2007). Motivation, interest, and positive affect in traditional and nontraditional undergraduate students. Adult Education Quarterly, 57(2), 141-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713606294235
  22. Carstens, K. J., Mallon, J. M., Bataineh, M., & Al-Bataineh, A. (2021). Effects of Technology on Student Learning. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 20(1), 105-113
  23. Carvalho, A.R. and Santos, C. (2022) ‘Developing peer mentors’ collaborative and metacognitive skills with a technology-enhanced peer learning program’, Computers and Education Open, 3, p. 100070. doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100070.
  24. Chen, T.-W., Luo, H., Feng, Q., & Li, G. (2023). Effect of Technology Acceptance on Blended Learning Satisfaction: The Serial Mediation of Emotional Experience, Social Belonging, and Higher-Order Thinking. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(5), 4442. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20054442
  25. Cheng, C. H., & Chen, C. H. (2019). Investigating the impacts of using a mobile interactive English learning system on the learning achievements and learning perceptions of student with different backgrounds. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1671460
  26. Chikwaka, Miriam & Ahmad, Dawood & Mohebi, Laila. (2024). Technology-based Teaching. Choa, M. H., & Castañedab, D. A. (2019). Motivational and affective engagement in learning Spanish with a mobile application. System, 81, 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.01.008
  27. Cloete, A. L. (2017). Technology and education: Challenges and opportunities. HTS: Theological Studies, 73(3), 1-7.
  28. Crompton, H., Burke, D., & Gregory, K. H. (2017). The use of mobile learning in PK-12 education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 110, 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.013
  29. Crookes, R. M. (2018). Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 82–103. doi:10.1007/s12528-011-9043-x
  30. Das, N., Khawandiza, S. K., Sarwar, B., Ahmed, A., & Hassan, S. (2019). Technology- Embedded Educational Policy: Mediation Effects of the Use of Virtual Learning Influence on Learner Satisfaction. Journal of Education and Training, 6(1), 41-53. doi:10.5296/jet.v6i1.13856
  31. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). The importance of autonomy for development and well- being. In Self-regulation and autonomy (pp. 19-46). Academic Press.
  32. Delfino, A. P. (2019). Student Engagement and Academic Performance of Students of Partido State University. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR), 48(1), 101-1141.
  33. Doni, Purnama, Alamsyah., Indriana., Irma, Setyawati., Heni, Rohaeni. (2022). New Technology Adoption of E-Learning: Model of Perceived Usefulness. doi: 10.1109/IBDAP55587.2022.9907261
  34. Dor, S. (2017). Motivation and self-regulation in online learning. The Routledge handbook of language learning and technology, 126-144. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315657349-10 Dorji, K., Tshomo, T., & Dorji, S. (2022). Impact of multimedia technology integrated instruction on students' learning satisfaction in Bhutanese classroom. Journal on School Educational Technology, 17(3), 32-45. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.17.3.18554
  35. Dylmoon, H., Kim, T., Listiani, T., & Setianingsih, A. R. (2019). Adolescence Student Behavioral Engagement In Mathematics Class. https://doi.org/10.23887/JPI- UNDIKSHA.V8I2.16927
  36. Edglossary. (2021). Student engagement. Retrieved from https://www.edglossary.org/student- engagement/
  37. Edmeades, J. (2017). Motivation and educational outcomes: The role of autonomous and controlled motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(8), 1144–1155
  38. Elkina, I.Yu. (2022). The study of factors affecting student satisfaction with learning using distance learning technologies. Vestnik Kostromskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta imeni N.A. Nekrasova, 28(1), 192-197. https://doi.org/10.34216/2073-1426-2022-28-1-192-197
  39. Falloon, G. (2019). Using simulations to teach young students science concepts: an experiential learning theoretical analysis. Computers & Education, 135, 138–159.
  40. Fomina, A., Rodriguez, J., Park, S., & Chen, L. (2023). The impact of student engagement on educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 45(4), 189-205
  41. Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1984). Statistical methods in education and psychology (2nd ed.). Allyn & Bacon
  42. Goodhue, D.L. & Thompson, R.L. (1995). Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance. MIS Quarterly, 19 (2), 213.
  43. Greene, B. A. (2015). Measuring cognitive engagement with self-report scales: Reflections from over 20 years of research. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 14-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.989230
  44. Haider, Wali, Khan., Rani, Gul., Murtaza, Zeb. (2023). The Effect of Students’ Cognitive and Emotional Engagement on Students’ Academic Success and Academic Productivity. Journal of social sciences review, doi: 10.54183/jssr.v3i1.141
  45. Hannula, M. S. (2016). Attitudes, Beliefs, Motivation and Identity in Mathematics Education: An Overview of the Field and Future Directions. ICME-13 Topical Surveys
  46. Hariman, Surya, Siregar. (2023). Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use of Online Learning for Islamic Religious Education Teacher. JPI (Jurnal Pendidikan Islam), doi: 10.15575/jpi.v0i0.25518
  47. Hero, J. L. (2019). The Impact of Technology Integration in Teaching Performance. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR), 48(1), 101- 1142.
  48. Hertzog, C., Kramer, A. F., Wilson, R. S., & Lindenberger, U. (2009). Enrichment effects on adult cognitive development: Can the functional capacity of older adults be preserved and enhanced?. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(1), 1-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01034.x
  49. Hopper, E. (2021). Self-efficacy theory. Salem Press Encyclopedia.
  50. Hosseini, M., & Farivar, A. S. (2023). Ease of use of digital platforms for educational purposes: perception of secondary school students, teachers and administrators. EPRA international journal of research & development. https://doi.org/10.36713/epra12534
  51. Huang, T.-C., Limniou, M., & Wu, W.-C. V. (2023). Editorial: Virtual learning environments in educational institutions. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 3, 1138660. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1138660
  52. Inácio, Amanda & Boruchovitch, Evely & Cunha, Neide & Miranda, Lúcia. (2023). Predictive Potential of Motivation to Learn in the use of Learning Strategies. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa. 39. 10.1590/0102.3772e39nspe02.en.
  53. Inaltekin, T. (2020). Examining secondary students’ perceptions of the technology-based learning and teaching in science courses. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues. 12(2), 071–083. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v12i2.4628
  54. Inga, Dailidiene. (2022). Technology of Teaching. Shanlax International Journal of Arts, Science and Humanities, doi: 10.34293/sijash.v10is1.5225
  55. Irzan, Ismail., Helmy, Fadlisham, Abu, Hasan., Mohd, Zailani, Othman. (2023). Factors Influencing Student Engagement in Open Distance Learning (ODL). International journal of academic research in business & social sciences, doi: 10.6007/ijarbss/v13-i6/17222
  56. Joshi, S. (2023). TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION. VIDYA-A JOURNAL OF GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, 2(2), 3-5.
  57. Kang, J., Lee, S., & Park, H. (2023). Student engagement: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 45(2), 87-102
  58. Kramer, A. F. (2017). The potential of cognitive training in older adults. Nature Reviews Neurology, 13(9), 491-492. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2017.117
  59. Kubischta, F. (2014). Engagement and Motivation: Questioning students on study-motivation, engagement and study strategies.
  60. Kunnackal John, G., Francis, N., & Santhakumar, A. B. (2022). Student engagement: Past, present, and future. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Research Anthology on Developing Critical Thinking Skills in STEM Education (pp. 367-385). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8275-6.ch020
  61. Kuyucu, S. (2022). Factors Influencing Virtual Learning System Usage in Higher Education. In Virtual Learning Environments: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications (pp. 1917-1938). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch100
  62. Li J, Xue E. Dynamic Interaction between Student Learning Behaviour and Learning Environment: Meta-Analysis of Student Engagement and Its Influencing Factors. Behav Sci (Basel). 2023 Jan 9;13(1):59. doi: 10.3390/bs13010059. PMID: 36661631; PMCID: PMC9855184.
  63. Lim, L., Lim, S., & Lim, R. W. Y. (2022). Measuring Learner Satisfaction of an Adaptive Learning System. Behavioral Sciences, 12(8), 264. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12080264
  64. Lindenberger, U. (2014). Human cognitive aging: Corriger la fortune?. Science, 346(6209), 572-578. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254403
  65. Liu, Q., Dou, F., Yang, M., Amdework, E., Wang, G., & Bi, J. (2023). Interpreting the impact of technology-based instruction on student engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 45(3), 123-137.
  66. Madhav, N., & Joseph, M. K. (2020). The ease of use and intentions of use of cloud technology in higher education institutions. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415088.3415093
  67. Marougkas, A., Troussas, C., Krouska, A., & Sgouropoulou, C. (2023). Virtual Reality in Education: A Review of Learning Theories, Approaches and Methodologies for the Last Decade. Electronics, 12(13), 2832. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12132832
  68. Mayer, R. E. (2020). Where is the learning in mobile technologies for learning? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101824
  69. Mellati, Morteza & Mellati, Morteza. (2018). Technology-Based Education: Challenges of Blended Educational Technology. 10.4018/978-1-5225-7010-3.ch003.
  70. Middleton, J. A., & Spanias, P. (2019). Motivation for achievement in mathematics: Findings, generalizations, and criticisms of the research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 65–88
  71. Miyatsu, T., & McDaniel, M. A. (2019). Adding the keyword mnemonic to retrieval practice: A potent combination for foreign language vocabulary learning? Memory & Cognition, 47(7), 1328–1343. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00936-2
  72. Mohammadi Zenouzagh, Z., Admiraal, W., & Saab, N. (2023). Learner autonomy, learner engagement and learner satisfaction in text-based and multimodal computer mediated writing environments. Education and Information Technologies, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11615-w
  73. Moorthy, K., Yee, T. T., T’ing, L. C., & Kumaran, V. V. (2019). Habit and hedonic motivation are the strongest influences in mobile learning behaviours among higher education students in Malaysia. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 174–191. https://doi.org/10.1742/ajet.4432
  74. Mora, H., Signes-Pont, M. T., Fuster-Guilló, A., & Pertegal-Felices, M. L. (2020). A collaborative working model for enhancing the learning process of science & engineering students. Computers in Human Behavior, 103, 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.008
  75. Nadeem, M., Rafiq, M. A., & Jameel, K. (2023). The Role of Educational Technology in Academia. In Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Sixth Edition (pp. 1- 12). IGI Global.
  76. Naibert, N., & Barbera, J. (2022). Development and evaluation of a survey to measure student engagement at the activity level in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(3), 1410-1419.
  77. Narca, M. L., & Caballes, D. G. (2021). Learning Motivation: Strategies to Increase Students’ Engagement in Online Learning at San Sebastian College-Recoletos, Manila. International Journal of Asian Education, 2(4), 573-5803.
  78. Nguyen, T. D., Cannata, M., & Miller, J. (2016). Understanding student behavioral engagement: Importance of student interaction with peers and teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(3), 332-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.917256 Nunez, J. C., Cerezo, R., Bernardo, A., Rosário, P., Valle, A., & Fernández, E. (2015).
  79. Relationships between perceived parental involvement in homework and student homework behaviors: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 27(2), 363–38
  80. Nurhayati, S., Hidayat, A. W., Zahra, D. N., Fitri, A. G., & Fasa, M. I. (2023). The Effectiveness of Virtual Classroom Learning in Islamic Early Childhood Education. KnE Social Sciences, 8(4), 1227-1241. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v8i4.12927
  81. Nurullina, G., Muraviyov, A., Martyanova, A., & Yarmakeev, I. (2018). Project technology in the development of communicative competence in schoolchildren: Extracurricular classes of Russian language. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 13(4), 461-468. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v13i4.3897
  82. Nyako, K., & Okyere, M. (2016). Motivated Learning Strategies and Academic Achievement: The Mediating Role of Self-Regulation. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(3), 1–8.
  83. Onal, N., Cevik, K. K., & Senol, V. (2019). The effect of SOS Table learning environment on mobile learning tools acceptance, motivation and mobile learning attitude in English language learning.          Interactive      Learning          Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1690529
  84. Pan, S. C., Tajran, J., Lovelett, J., Osuna, J., & Rickard, T. C. (2019). Does interleaved practice enhance foreign language learning? The effects of training schedule on Spanish verb conjugation skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(7), 1172–1188. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000336
  85. 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 Pandero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2014). An intervention programme to improve learners' self- regulated learning          skills.   Revista Psicodidactica, 18(2),       470-473. https://doi.org/10.1387/RevPsicodidact.6961
  86. Pandita, A., & Kiran, R. (2023). The Technology Interface and Student Engagement Are Significant Stimuli in Sustainable Student Satisfaction. Sustainability, 15(10), 7923. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107923
  87. Pfeffer, J., & Seval, D. (2018). Perceived usefulness in technology integration: A study of educational practices. Journal of Educational Technology, 42(3), 123–137
  88. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and self regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33- 40 Rabinowitz, M., & Glaser, R. (2018). Assessing the Integration of Embedded MetacognitiveStrategies in Activity-Based Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(3), 385– 399
  89. Rachael, Oke, Misan-Ruppee., S., Obro., Williams, P., Akpochafo. (2023). Innovative instructional approach: the effect of information and communication technology-assisted instruction on civic education students' performance. Arab Gulf Journal of Scientific Research, doi: 10.1108/agjsr-02-2023-0047
  90. Rachels, J. R., & Rockinsonszapkiw, A. J. (2018). The effects of a mobile gamification app on elementary students’ Spanish achievement and self-efficacy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(9), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1382536
  91. Rashi, Malik. (2023). Impact of Technology-based Education on Student Learning Outcomes and Engagement.
  92. Read, T., Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Barcena, E. (2021). Supporting listening comprehension by social network-based interaction in mobile assisted language learning. Porta Linguarum Revista Interuniversitaria De Didáctica De Las Lenguas Extranjeras, 35, 295–309. https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.v0i35.15341
  93. Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149-172). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
  94. Ribeiro, A. R., Pereira, A. I., Pedro, M., & Roberto, M. S. (2023). Predictors of child student engagement in elementary school: A mixed-methods study exploring the role of externalising problems. International Journal of Behavioral Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2449
  95. Richardson, M., & Newby, T. (2006). The role of students’ cognitive engagement in online learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640600624795
  96. Robbins, D. (2018). Self-efficacy. In B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation (pp. 1486-1488). SAGE Publications.
  97. Ryantt, S. (2017). Self-efficacy and engagement. In A. A. Lipnevich, F. Preckel, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Psychosocial skills and school systems in the 21st century (pp. 57-74). Springer.
  98. Salehinya, H., Mohammadi, M., & Mirzaee, H. (2018). Academic self-regulation and motivation predictors of students academic achievement. PCP, 6(2), 117-128. https://doi.org/10.29252/jcp.6.2.117
  99. Sey, K. A. (2016). Students' Self-Regulated Learning Inventory. Indian Journal of Research, 5(4), 47-51.
  100. Shinyoung, Park., Hyewon, Chung. (2023). Exploring Factors Influencing Academic Engagement of Middle School Students. Korean Association For Learner-Centered Curriculum And Instruction, doi: 10.22251/jlcci.2023.23.2.129
  101. Smith, J., & Johnson, A. (2020). Peer Interaction in the Classroom: A Key to Academic Success. Journal of Educational Psychology, 45(2), 123-136.
  102. Stieger, S., & Lachman, M. E. (2021). Cognitive engagement and cognitive functioning: Does cognitive engagement protect cognition in older adults?. Journal of Aging and Health, 33(5-6), 267-279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264320965720
  103. Sturdy, L. (2013). Student engagement as a concept for improving the educational practice of girls in pupil referral units. Journal of Student Engagement: Education Matters, 3(1), 30- 38.
  104. Sutton, E. (2021) The importance of student engagement and how to promote it. Branching Minds. Retrieved March 26, 2024, from (https://www.branchingminds.com/blog/student- engagement-remote-in-person)
  105. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (2017). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information systems research, 6(2), 144-176.
  106. Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., Matos, L., & Lacante, M. (2004). Less is sometimes more: Goal content matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 755- 764. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.755
  107. Wang, M. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2013). School context, achievement motivation, and academic engagement: A longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional perspective.      Learning          and      Instruction,      28,       12-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.04.002
  108. Wilson, R. S., & Kramer, A. F. (2017). Cognitive training and engagement mode. In Cognitive Reserve and Alzheimer's Disease (pp. 135-149). Springer.
  109. Yuill, Nicola. (2021). Collaborative Technology in the Classroom. 10.1007/978-3-030-75047- 3_5.
  110. Zaimah, A., Lee, C. K. C., & Tan, S. H. (2020). Perceived ease of use and technology adoption among students: A study using the Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Educational Technology, 42(3), 123–137.
  111. Zubaidi, A. M., & Velusamy, S. (2023). The Necessity of Educational Technology in Teaching Methods: Why Educational Technology in Teaching Is Important?. In Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Sixth Edition (pp. 1-12). IGI Global.

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic