Brit J Educational Tech - 2022 - Lu - What Influences Student Situational Engagement in Smart Classrooms Perception of The

14678535, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13204 by Ist Politecnico De Lisboa, Wiley Online Library on [04/02/2023].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
|
Received: 23 January 2021 Accepted: 3 February 2022
DOI: 10.1111/bjet.13204
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
What influences student situational

engagement in smart classrooms: Perception
of the learning environment and students'
motivation
Guoqing Lu1 | Kui Xie2 | Qingtang Liu1
1
School of Educational Information
Technology, Central China Normal Abstract
University, Wuhan, China
2
Situational engagement plays a critical role in pro-
College of Education and Human Ecology,
The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, moting students' academic performance. In a smart
USA
classroom environment, this study collected longi-
Correspondence tudinal real-time data for 105 college students at a
Guoqing Lu, School of Educational
Information Technology, Central China university in central China to investigate the relation-
Normal University, 152 Luoyu Rd, Wuhan,
Hubei 430079, China. ship among situational engagement, personal char-
Email: luguoqing@mails.ccnu.edu.cn acteristics and learning environment perceptions.
Kui Xie, College of Education and Human
Ecology, The Ohio State University, 29
Hierarchical linear modelling showed that environ-
W. Woodruff Ave., 322A Ramseyer Hall, mental perception and students' personal factors
Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Email: xie.359@osu.edu have different effects on situational engagement.
Funding information Specifically, (1) social support perceptions, autono-
National Natural Science Foundation of
China, Grant/Award Number: 61977035
mous motivation and controlled motivation have a
significant impact on behavioural engagement; (2)
perceptions of social and media support, autono-
mous motivation and controlled motivation have a
significant impact on shallow cognitive engagement;
and (3) perceptions of teacher and social support,
self-efficacy and autonomous motivation significantly
predict deep cognitive and emotional engagement.
This study suggests that the effect of the perception
regarding advanced technology-supported learning
environments on students' situational engagement is
limited, and instructors should pay more attention to
improving students' perceptions of teacher and social
© 2022 British Educational Research Association
Br J Educ Technol. 2022;53:1665–1687. |

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bjet 1665
14678535, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13204 by Ist Politecnico De Lisboa, Wiley Online Library on [04/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
|
1666 LU et al.
support, self-efficacy and autonomous motivation to

promote students' situational deep cognitive engage-
ment in smart classrooms.
KEYWORDS
academic motivation, experience sampling method, hierarchical
linear modelling, perceived support, situational engagement,
smart classroom
Practitioner notes
What is already known about this topic
• Compared with overall engagement, situational engagement fluctuates and
changes with time and context.
• Situational engagement is a product of environmental and personal factors.
• Few studies have focused on the nature of situational engagement and how en-
vironmental and personal factors influence situational engagement in smart
classrooms.
What the paper adds
• This study contributes to the existing literature by investigating the critical factors
that predict situational engagement, using the experience sampling method in a
smart classroom at a Chinese university.
• Environmental perception, self-efficacy and students' motivation factors have dif-
ferent effects on situational engagement in a smart classroom.
• Perceptions of teacher and social support, self-efficacy and autonomous motiva-
tion significantly predict deep cognitive and emotional engagement, while per-
ceptions of media support only have a significant impact on shallow cognitive
engagement.
• Personal factors (controlled and autonomous motivation) moderate the relation-
ship between environmental perception factors and situational engagement.
Implications for practice and/or policy
• Rather than only providing external technology-rich conditions, instructors should
focus more on improving students' perceptions of teacher and social support, self-
efficacy and autonomous motivation in the smart classroom environment.
• Instructors should promote students' perception of teacher support and their au-
tonomous motivation to enhance their deep cognitive engagement.
I NTRO DUCTI O N
The smart classroom refers to a “face-to-face classroom that employs active learning pro-
cesses in combination with advanced forms of educational technology” (Li et al., 2019) to
enhance the learning experience (Saini & Goel, 2019). The EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis
and Research predicted that smart classroom environments will be popular by 2022
(Brooks, 2017). They are gaining attention across higher education and K-12 settings. To fa-
cilitate the effective application of smart classrooms, however, it is important to understand
how students engage and learn, and what factors influence this in smart classrooms.
STUDENT SITUATIONAL ENGAGEMENT IN SMART
CLASSROOMS |
1667
Student engagement, labelled the ‘holy grail of learning’, has been deemed vital in the
learning process and linked to positive learning outcomes (Fredricks et al., 2004; Manwaring
et al., 2017; Xie et al., 2020). There is a body of literature that has examined how students
engage in technology-supported classroom environments. However, these studies mostly
focused on students' long-term cumulative state of engagement, called overall engagement
(Ketonen et al., 2018; Manwaring et al., 2017; Pöysä et al., 2020). These studies on overall
engagement may offer great insights on students' general learning experiences in class-
room environments, but, as contemporary theories suggest, engagement often fluctuates
and changes with time and context, and is a multidimensional structure affected by a spe-
cific task, occurring at a specific time (Xie et al., 2019). Researchers defined this dynamic
engagement as situational engagement (Ketonen et al., 2018; Manwaring et al., 2017; Pöysä
et al., 2020). Through an empirical study, Pöysä et al. (2020) further proved that situational
engagement and overall engagement have a certain correlation, but are not completely
consistent. On the whole, situational engagement occurs at the specific activity level and
is different from overall engagement. The former is described as a ‘state’ with contextuality
and volatility (Thijs & Verkuyten, 2009), while the latter is more likely to be a personal trait-
like variable with a certain degree of stability (Pöysä et al., 2020). As learning is a contextu-
alization process, many learning theories, such as social cognitive theory, support the idea
that individuals and their environment dynamically influence each other (Xie et al., 2019b).
When exploring the process of learning, as compared to overall engagement, situational
engagement is more precise (Janna et al., 2019; Manwaring et al., 2017). Through cap-
turing situational engagement in context, researchers can explore the learning experience
in micro-context from fine-grained data and the more precise nexus between contextual
factors and individuals' characteristics (Schmidt et al., 2018; Xie et al., 2019b). However,
research studies aiming to capture and examine situational changes of engagement and its
factors, in the context of smart classrooms, are still rare. Therefore, to fill this gap, our study
took this situational approach in examining students' situational engagement and their inter-
relationship with smart classrooms. A major contribution of our studies lies in its theoretical
approach in examining learning engagement in this specific context, which may advance our
understanding of the nature of learning in smart classrooms and provide theoretical guid-
ance for designing and supporting students' engagement in this environment.
Capturing situational engagement requires a specific contextualized approach. Here,
we adopted the experience sampling method (ESM) to measure situational engagement
(Manwaring et al., 2017; Pöysä et al., 2020). ESM, as a form of intensive longitudinal method,
captures the immediate experiences of student engagement and links those experiences
to specific educational contexts, rather than to an abstract concept of engagement (Pöysä
et al., 2018; Schmidt et al., 2018). ESM is particularly meaningful in this area as it captures
students' real-time processes in this context, as learning occurs. In contrast to previous
studies that use single-time self-reports to examine overall engagement (Greene, 2015), our
study used ESM, providing an in-situ and fine-grained dataset to better understand how ed-
ucation contexts shape situational engagement in a multi-screen and technology-rich class-
room environment, and to support smart classroom design and tailor instructional support
for situational engagement—another contribution of our study.
LITE R ATUR E R E V I E W
Situational engagement in smart classroom
As proved by a body of literature, situational engagement is a multidimensional struc-

ture and the instantaneous state of overall engagement (Schmidt et al., 2018; Torsney &
|
1668 LU et al.
Symonds, 2019). Hence, its structural dimension is in line with overall engagement, including
the behavioural, cognitive and emotional constituents (Schmidt et al., 2018; Xie et al., 2019a).
Given the wide application of the three sub-construct model of situational engagement, the
convenience of measurement, and the consistency with the overall engagement structure
that facilitates the comparison of results, situational engagement in this study was defined as
‘the moment-by-moment process of students engaging cognitively, behaviourally and affec-
tively in a task or activity’ (Symonds et al., 2020) and was operationalized into behavioural,
cognitive and emotional engagement. Behavioural engagement is defined as concentration
in specific learning contexts (Fredricks et al., 2004; Pekrun & Linnenbrink, 2012). Cognitive
engagement occurs implicitly, generally referring to psychological investment in specific
learning contexts (Greene, 2015). This study categorized it as shallow and/or driven at a
deeper level by the processing theory levels (Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Walker et al., 2006).
Shallow cognitive engagement involves memorizing answers, definitions and other shallow
information processing methods, while deep cognitive engagement includes summarizing,
associating and applying information (Xie et al., 2019b). In this study, emotional engagement
was operationalized as positive emotions that are activated during the learning process,
such as interest or enjoyment (Henrie et al., 2015).
Smart classrooms, as a technology-rich learning environment, are often equipped with
circular tables with movable seats, supporting small group learning, projectors, multiscreen,
wireless internet, recording or casting equipment and other similar elements (Baepler
et al., 2014; MacLeod et al., 2018). These technologies encourage more social, flexible and
student-centred learning environments (Li et al., 2019). However, smart classrooms may
also make student situational engagement more difficult, as rich technology, if misused,
may have adverse effects and can interfere with student learning. For instance, Saini and
Goel (2019) claimed that technical equipment installed in the classroom, which aimed to
enhance engagement, may lead to distractions. Saini and Goel (2019) also reported that
smartphones used in a classroom as interactive tools may also lead to poor concentration
and disengagement. Hence, in a smart classroom with rich media and strong interaction
with teachers, peers and media, identifying how instructional support is associated with stu-
dents' engagement in this specific context is vital to designing interventions and supporting
students through pedagogical choices, as those take place in a series of different situations.
However, empirical evidence is limited on how students are situationally engaged and re-
sponsive to the instructional intervention in real smart classroom learning situations.
Situational engagement as a product of environmental and

personal factors
Situational engagement is presumed to be malleable, varying from one learning context to

another (eg, Janna et al., 2019; Pöysä et al., 2019; Symonds et al., 2020) and responsive
to external environmental support (Pöysä et al., 2020). Thus, situational engagement can
be shaped by contextual factors related to the interactions between teachers, students and
technology (Inkinen et al., 2020). The term “perceptual phenomena” was used to describe
the different ways various contexts are experienced and internalized (Shernoff, 2010), while
the process of internalization can be influenced by personal characteristics. Therefore, situ-
ational engagement can be seen as a product of the interaction of environmental factors
perceived by the student in context, and personal factors brought by the student to that
particular context (Manwaring et al., 2017).
More specifically, social cognitive theory highlights that individual characteristics (eg,
self-efficacy, motivation), students' behaviour and the environment, dynamically influence
each other (Bandura, 2001; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020; Sökmen, 2021), as in Figure 1.
CLASSROOMS |
1669
3HUVRQ
(QYLURQPHQW %HKDYLRXU
F I G U R E 1 Model of reciprocal determinism
Students' behaviours are constantly in flux due to their perception and response to changing
environments. For instance, in a classroom, students are more likely to engage in the current
learning activity (behaviour) if they believe in their capabilities (personal factors) and receive
adequate support from their teachers (environmental factors). Students' engagement (be-
haviour) causes them to increase their motivation (personal factors) and their teachers to
spend more time on the topic (environmental factors).
The social cognitive theory provides a framework for explaining how environmental and
personal factors interact to influence student situational engagement in smart classrooms.
In the following sections, we review the literature on environmental factors and personal
characteristics specifically related to smart classrooms.
Environmental factors: Perception of smart classroom environment
The pedagogy, social interaction and technology (PST) model (Wang, 2009), which em-
phasized that a technology-enabled learning environment can be designed from pedagogi-
cal, social and technological perspectives, provides a foundation to understanding which
features of learning environments are most effective at triggering the different dimensions
of engagement. According to the PST model and the characteristics of a technology-rich
learning environment, we identified three environmental perception factors.
First, the perception of media support refers to preserving aspects of availability, friend-
liness and usefulness (Sembiring et al., 2018); here, it refers to the perceived usefulness of
a multiscreen environment to support the learning process of memory, understanding, di-
gestion, absorption and other processes in smart classrooms. Instructional content in smart
classrooms is generally presented on a multidisplay instructional system. Studies have
shown that a multiscreen environment can reduce cognitive load and improve academic
performance (Chang et al., 2011; Cheng et al., 2015), perceptions of the instructional tech-
nology effects can promote students' cognition and positive outcomes (Saini & Goel, 2019)
and perceptions of digital support have a significant impact on student engagement by sat-
isfying their needs (Chiu, 2021). However, in the context of smart classrooms, whether the
perception of media support can effectively promote students' situational engagement re-
mains to be explored.
Second, perceptions of teacher support refer to the degree to which students perceive
teachers' support during learning sessions—academic support—and the degree to which
they perceive the teachers' respect, concern and care in the classroom—that is, emotional
support (Luan et al., 2020). In smart classrooms, instructors play a leading role in the teach-
ing process, adopt active learning instructional strategies and provide academic or emotional
support to students. Studies have found that the perception of teacher support has a positive
impact on student situational engagement (Bond, 2020; Chiu, 2021; Fredricks et al., 2004).
For instance, Chiu (2021) investigated the influence of perceived teacher support and dig-
ital support on student engagement in blended learning and found that perceived teacher
support had significant positive effects on all student engagement dimensions. However,
in the smart classroom, it is still worth exploring how perceptions of teacher support affect
situational engagement.
|
1670 LU et al.
Third, social support perception in this study refers to the perception and experience
of learners when interacting with peers in a smart classroom environment. Previous re-
searches have shown consistent empirical supports for the close relationship between
students' perceived social support and their engagement across various learning contexts
(eg, Chen, 2005; Cho et al., 2015; Greene, 2015; Luan et al., 2020). For instance, Molinillo
et al. (2018) suggested that dialogue and the discussion of ideas with peers encourage
students' reflection and improve social presence, which has been proved to be a key factor
to promote student engagement. Pöysä et al. (2019) has shown that when class members
actively discuss, debate and communicate ideas among themselves, student engagement
increases.
Based on the existing literature, we explore the extent to how the activity-level environ-
mental perceptions (of media support, teacher support and social interaction) predict situa-
tional engagement in smart classrooms.
Personal factors: Self-efficacy and motivation
Previous studies have shown that the qualities a learner brings to the learning situation af-
fect situational engagement, such as motivation, self-efficacy, interest and so on (Manwaring
et al., 2017). Among the personal factors, self-efficacy has been shown to affect students' en-
gagement in academic settings (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Sökmen, 2021; Xie et al., 2020).
Researchers have suggested that students with high self-efficacy are more likely to engage
behaviourally while learning (Sökmen, 2021; Xie et al., 2019a; Xie & Huang, 2014), cogni-
tively engage using deep strategies (Sökmen, 2021; Sun et al., 2018; Walker et al., 2006; Xie
et al., 2019a) and generate energized emotional states (Sökmen, 2021; Xie et al., 2019a).
Therefore, we anticipate that students' self-efficacy will be positively related to situational
engagement in smart classrooms.
Another important personal characteristic related to engagement is students' academic
motivation. Self-determination theory's internalization continuum specifies four subtypes of
extrinsic motivation: external, introjected, identification and integrated regulation (Ryan &
Deci, 2020). The first two are controlled motivation, and the last two are autonomous mo-
tivations. Controlled and autonomous motivations refer to the reasons behind behaviours
being initiated and dominated by external forces and by self (eg, enjoyment), respectively
(Cai & Liem, 2017; Xie et al., 2020, 2021). Existing research has examined how controlled
and autonomous motivations are associated with students' engagement in academic activi-
ties (Cai & Liem, 2017; Reeve, 2013; Xie, 2013; Xie & Ke, 2011). A few studies have explored
the relationship between autonomous and controlled motivation, and situational affective
states. For instance, in a study using the experience-sampling method (ESM) by Ketonen
et al. (2018), autonomous motivation predicted positive emotions, whereas controlled moti-
vation predicted negative emotions in everyday academic situations. However, no longitudi-
nal studies explored the influence of controlled and autonomous motivations on situational
engagement aspects.
Based on the existing literature, we investigated the extent to which personal factors (self-
efficacy, autonomous motivation and controlled motivation) predict situational engagement
in smart classrooms.
Prior studies have examined how personal and environmental factors interact with stu-
dent engagement. For example, Azila-Gbettor and Abiemo (2020) found that academic self-
efficacy and perceived lecturer support interact with engagement within a higher education
setup. Black and Deci (2000) found that students' initial level of autonomous motivation mod-
erated the effects of perceived autonomy support on their performance. A few studies have
focused on situational engagement, using ESM to capture the interaction among personal
CLASSROOMS |
1671
factors, environmental factors and engagement in authentic contexts. For instance, Park
et al. (2012) found that personal characteristics (GPA) moderated the relationship between
learning contexts (perceived relatedness) and emotional engagement. Xie et al. (2019b) in-
dicated that environmental factors and personal factors (event-level and person-level self-
efficacy) interact with shallow and deep cognitive engagement.
Based on existing literature, we investigated whether personal factors influence the rela-
tionship between environmental factors (perception of media support, teacher support and
social interaction) and situational engagement.
Experience sampling method
Many researchers suggest that situational engagement needs to be more accurately meas-
ured as a process, rather than a global score (Manwaring et al., 2017; Pöysä et al., 2020).
However, it is difficult for prospective or retrospective self-reports (Chen et al., 2010) to
capture situational engagement in specific contexts (Henrie et al., 2015). Therefore, an
effective methodology that provides commensurate data for investigating the fluctuation
and situation-specific engagement, must be established. The ESM (Hektner et al., 2007),
a method used to collect information about individuals' real-time experiences in natural
contexts, through repeated self-report questionnaires and signal reminder tools (such as
pagers and mobile phones) (Xie et al., 2019a; Zirkel et al., 2015), have the rich potential
to capture the situational engagement throughout smart classrooms. When the signal
reminder tools sound at a fixed or random time, the participants fill out the experience
sampling form to measure their feelings, activities and behaviours in their natural set-
tings. This method has a high degree of external or ‘ecological’ validity and can reduce
response bias and memory recall errors (Janna et al., 2019) and allows researchers to
capture participants' fluctuation of engagement and perception of learning context (Park
et al., 2012; Xie et al., 2019a). ESM is an appropriate approach for researchers to ac-
curately capture students' perceptions of the learning environment and psychological
reactions. According to the ESM principle, the items in the ESM questionnaire should
be designed to be as short as possible (Hektner et al., 2007), and single-item measures
should be used to avoid overly intrusive interference and improve reliability and validity
(Goetz et al., 2016).
TH E PR ESENT STUDY
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between personal characteristics,
contextual features and situational engagement, in a technology-rich learning environment
setting. By integrating the social cognitive theory, engagement framework, PST model and
self-determination theory, we propose a conceptual model (Figure 2), which is the concep-
tualization of classical theories that enrich the application context.
In this model, we examined the influence of personal and environmental factors on sit-
uational engagement. Environmental factors comprised students' perceptions of the learn-
ing environment, while personal factors comprised students' motivation and self-efficacy
(Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). Here, situational engagement was considered an outcome
factor that may be directly influenced by personal and environmental factors. While situa-
tional engagement and perceptions of the learning environment fluctuate with different sit-
uations and are located at level 1, personal factors are relatively stable and located at level
2. We posit that classroom environment factors influence students' situational engagement,
and students' personal factors (eg, self-efficacy and academic motivation) moderate the
|
1672 LU et al.
EHWZHHQLQGLYLGXDOOHYHOOHYHO
3HUVRQDOIDFWRUV
HJVHOIHIILFDF\DFDGHPLFPRWLYDWLRQ
6LWXDWLRQDOHQJDJHPHQW
HJEHKDYLRXUDOFRJQLWLYH
(QYLURQPHQWIDFWRUV
DQGHPRWLRQDOHQJDJHPHQW
HJSHUFHSWLRQVRIWHDFKHUVRFLDO
DQGPHGLDVXSSRUW
ZLWKLQLQGLYLGXDOOHYHOOHYHO
F I G U R E 2 Model of situational engagement
relationship between environmental factors and engagement. Our study tested the model
shown in Figure 2 with the following research questions:
RQ1: How did the activity-level environmental perceptions (of media support,
teacher support and social interaction) predict situational engagement in smart
classrooms?
RQ2: How did personal factors (self-efficacy, autonomous motivation and con-
trolled motivation) predict situational engagement in smart classrooms?
RQ3: How did personal factors influence the relationship between environmen-
tal factors (perception of media support, teacher support and social interaction)
and situational engagement in smart classrooms?
M ETHO D
Participants
The participants were recruited from the first semester of the 2019–2020 academic year,
from a research-oriented, four-year university located in central China. This university in-
cludes teacher training and higher education preparation and has invested in technology-
enhanced learning environments. Nearly 50 smart classrooms have been built, providing
access to various disciplines.
The sample comprised 105 undergraduates (73 females), and their ages ranged from
17 to 22 (average age: 19.05; standard deviation: 0.937). They were recruited from three
courses, ‘Introduction to Educational Technology’ (n = 42), ‘Educational Research Methods’
(n = 39) and ‘Computational Thinking’ (n = 34). Students in each class were divided into
5–7 groups under the same smart classroom environment. Informed consent and ethical
approval for data collection were obtained before implementation.
CLASSROOMS |
1673
Context
The university adopted a student-centred active learning instructional approach and advo-
cated for the new form of teaching in smart classrooms: a 1:1 time allocation between teach-
ers' teaching and students' active learning. The main form of teaching is through lectures:
for example, a teacher explains concepts, ideas and/or presents facts in a multiscreen and
technology-rich environment. The main forms of active learning are group presentations and
intragroup and intergroup discussions, for instance, dialogue or peer review between differ-
ent groups in smart classrooms.
As shown in Figure 3, the smart classrooms were equipped with multiple screens and
circle-shaped tables, each seating six students. The layout was flexible, and the students
worked in groups without fixed seats. Each group was equipped with a group discussion
screen, and all students had smartphones. Six screens were installed on the front and two
sidewalls. The smart classroom supported the delivery of learning resources (PPT about
lectures, reading materials, and quizzes, or tests for prior knowledge) through a wireless
network, which helped students use the group screen and smartphones to discuss problems
and present the reading materials or discussion results. These courses are compulsory sub-
jects in teacher education programs.
The three courses had two successive sessions per week, with 90 cumulative minutes
and a 15-min break between sessions. Each course was delivered over an 18-week semes-
ter. During these courses, the lecture content was presented on multiple screens and group
collaborative learning was the main form of learning activities involved, such as discussion
dĂďůĞ
dĂďůĞ
dĂďůĞ

dĂďůĞ

dĂďůĞ dĂďůĞ dĂďůĞ

& '
ŽŵƉƵƚĞƌĚĞƐŬ
&Žƌ>ĐŽŶƚƌŽů
ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐĞĂƚƐ;ƚŽƚĂůϰϮͿ ůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐǁŚŝƚĞďŽĂƌĚ
>ƐĐƌĞĞŶ
F I G U R E 3 The layout of the smart classroom environment

|
1674 LU et al.
within or between groups, group presentations and peer review on smartphones. These ac-
tivities were used to promote in-depth thinking, foster a democratic and active atmosphere,
and build teamwork.
Procedure
Paper-and-pencil tests were conducted early in the semester (pretest), and ESMs were
conducted during the semester. All items were translated simultaneously from English to
Chinese by three researchers and all differences were discussed and resolved. In the first
week of the semester, a pretest was conducted for the participants, where they provided
their demographic information, self-efficacy and academic motivation. During the semester,
a short message service (SMS) for the ESM survey was implemented every week. To mini-
mize the degree of interference for the subjects, SMSs with Wenjuanxing (an online survey
tool) links were sent to half of the class every week, at the exact completion time of the first
session and to the other half during the subsequent week. At the exact completion time
of the first face-to-face class every week, the research assistant prompted participants to
fill out the ESM surveys immediately after receiving a message to capture their situational
engagement and perception of the environment at that moment. The research process is
illustrated in Figure 4. Overall, 840 messages were sent in 16 weeks, and 531 responses
were obtained, with an average of 5.06 questionnaires per student. After excluding question-
naires with missing data and those submitted 30 min later, 518 questionnaires were left for
subsequent analyses.
Instruments
The instruments used in this study include the presurvey and ESM measures. The pre-
survey measured academic motivation and self-efficacy. For the perception of learning
environment, ESM measured the perception of media, teachers and social support, while
for situational engagement, it measured behavioural engagement, cognitive engagement
and emotional engagement. All items, except the presurvey demographic information, were
Time Line of Experiment
˄Between classes˅
ESM˄ ESM˄
˄Between classes˅
Pretest: Situational engagement Situational engagement

Behaviour engagement Behaviour engagement
Demographic Deep cognitive engagement Deep cognitive engagement
information Shallow cognitive engagement Shallow cognitive engagement
Ă
Emotional engagement Emotional engagement
Self-efficacy Perception of learning Perception of learning
Academic environment environment
motivation Perception of media support Perception of media support
Perception of teacher support Perception of teacher support
Perception of social support Perception of social support
fixed sampling
1st week 2nd week Ă 18th week
F I G U R E 4 Data collection procedure

T A B L E 1 The description of materials and tools
CLASSROOMS
Number Items
Factors Test of tests Measuring time count Sample item α Sources
Self-efficacy Presurvey 1 In the first week of 8 Compared with other students in this 0.863 Pintrich and De Groot (1990)
the semester class I expect to do well
Academic motivation Presurvey 1 16 I am studying because that is something 0.727 to 0.915 Ryan and Connell (1989)
others (parents, friends, etc.) force
me to do
Perception of media support ESM 8 During the 2 In the learning activity just now, the 0.93 Tang and Austin (2009)
semester screen in the smart classroom
helped me understand the materials
Perception of teacher ESM 8 2 In the learning activity just now, our 0.586 Lazarides et al. (2019)
support classroom teacher explained
everything until we understand it
Perception of social support ESM 8 2 In the learning activity just now, I felt 0.605 Sun et al. (2008)
that the quality of class discussions
was high throughout the course
Behavioural engagement ESM 8 1 How hard were you concentrating? – Janna et al. (2019)
Cognitive engagement
Deep cognitive engagement ESM 8 2 In the learning activity just now, I am 0.590 Greene (2015)
aware of what material I did or did
not understand
Shallow cognitive ESM 8 2 I am studying the course materials to 0.723
engagement get the information needed for the
test
Emotional engagement ESM 8 2 Did you enjoy what you were doing? 0.846 Janna et al. (2019)
| 1675
|
1676 LU et al.
rated using a six-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 6 = strongly agree). All items
were adapted to fit the situation. The original sources of the items are presented in Table 1.
All Cronbach's alphas are up to standard values, except the cognitive engagement, which
provided evidence for the fluctuation of situational engagement (Janna et al., 2019). See
Table 1 for details.
Data analytical procedure
The longitudinal repeated ESM measurement design resulted in two- level hierarchical
nested data, with repeated data points nested within each individual. Subsequently, to avoid
violating the assumption of independent observation, hierarchical linear modelling (HLM)
was used to account for this nested data structure (Park et al., 2012). HLM is an important
statistical analysis technique used to analyse multilevel phenomena that occur in natural sit-
uations (such as students nested within classrooms; Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013). This multi-
level modelling is particularly useful for analyzing ESM data. In conjunction with ESM, HLMs
allow researchers to study the relationships among personal and environmental factors, and
behaviours in between-subjects' and within-subjects' levels (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013;
Park et al., 2012). HLM analysis generally includes the null, random coefficient, intercepts
as outcomes, and slopes as outcomes models (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). After estimat-
ing and testing the significance of intraclass correlation (ICC), these models were analyzed
systematically in Mplus 7.4 for the four dependent variables, including behavioural, deep
cognitive, shallow cognitive and emotional engagement, and the details of the procedure
and coding part of HLM analysis are provided in the online Supporting Information.
R ESULTS
Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics and Pearson's correlations for all the variables in
the two levels. At the between-individual level, students had moderately high levels of au-
tonomous motivation and self-efficacy for the course in general, and moderately low levels
of controlled motivation. At the within-individual level, students had moderately high levels
of deep cognitive strategies and moderately low levels of shallow strategies. Autonomous
motivation was negatively related to shallow cognitive engagement. Except for self-efficacy
and shallow cognitive engagement, perception of teacher support and shallow cognitive
engagement, and controlled motivation and emotional engagement, all other independent
and dependent variables had a small, moderately significant positive correlation ranging
from 0.11 to 0.68.
Results of HLM
To verify the applicability of HLM, we estimated four null models in which no predictors were
specified for level 1 or level 2 with behavioural engagement, deep cognitive engagement,
shallow cognitive engagement and affective engagement as dependent variables. The four
null models indicated that all dependent variables varied significantly between students. The
value of intraclass correlation (ICC) was greater than 0.059 (Cohen, 1988), which justified
the use of subsequent HLM analyses. Results of variance components (Table 3) showed
that both between-and within-student variations occurred; however, within-student variation
CLASSROOMS
T A B L E 2 Descriptive statistics and Pearson's correlations
Overall
Variable N Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Between-individual level
1. Self-efficacy 105 4.19 0.73 −0.29 −0.04 1
2. Autonomous motivation 105 4.61 0.65 −0.46 0.29 0.51** 1
3. Controlled motivation 105 3.29 0.84 −0.16 0.22 0.10* 0.020 1

Within-individual level
4. Perception of media support 518 4.33 1.13 −0.67 0.04 0.24** 0.07 0.17** 1
5. Perception of teacher support 518 4.79 0.77 −0.61 0.64 0.25** 0.19** 0.08 0.36** 1
6. Perception of social support 518 4.07 0.99 −0.20 −0.19 0.24** 0.21** 0.06 0.37** 0.39** 1
7. Behavioural engagement 518 4.40 0.99 −0.87 1.08 0.20** 0.35** 0.13** 0.16** 0.28** 0.42** 1
8. Deep cognitive engagement 518 4.60 0.81 −0.56 0.18 0.39** 0.37** 0.11* 0.30** 0.39** 0.37** 0.45** 1
9. Shallow cognitive engagement 518 3.28 1.08 0.21 −0.48 −0.07 −0.17** 0.25** 0.30** 0.05 0.15** 0.03 0.11* 1
10. Emotional engagement 518 4.49 0.91 −0.70 0.65 0.37** 0.43** 0.05 0.26** 0.44** 0.47** 0.68** 0.57** −0.06
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
| 1677
|
1678 LU et al.
T A B L E 3 Variance components for student engagement
Variance
Dependent variable ICC component
Behavioural engagement Between-student effect 0.44
Within-student effect 0.56
Intraclass correlation 0.44
Deep cognitive engagement Between-student effect 0.30
Shallow cognitive engagement Between-student effect 0.49
Emotional engagement Between-student effect 0.41
was relatively larger compared to between-student variation. The ICC for all dependent
variables ranged from 0.42 to 0.49, illustrating that 42%–49% of the variance was at the
personal level, while 51%–58% was at the event level. For instance, the ICC of behavioural
engagement is 0.44, which illustrates that 44% of the variance was caused by differences
between individuals and 56% of the variance was caused by differences within individuals.
To address RQ 1 and 2, Table 4 shows the HLM results for all the dependent variables.
First, student behavioural engagement in situation is positively related with the perception of
social support (r = 0.29, p < 0.001), autonomous motivation (r = 0.53, p < 0.001) and con-
trolled motivation (r = 0.17, p < 0.05). No significant effect of media support and self-efficacy
perceptions on behavioural engagement was found.
Second, deep cognitive engagement in situation was significantly positively associated
with perception of teacher support (r = 0.21, p < 0.005), social support (r = 0.16, p < 0.001),
self- efficacy (r = 0.28, p < 0.005) and autonomous motivation (r = 0.30, p < 0.001). No
significant effect of media support and controlled motivation perceptions on deep cognitive
engagement was found.
Third, shallow cognitive engagement in context was significantly positively associated
with the perception of media support (r = 0.22, p < 0.001), social support (r = 0.11, p < 0.05)
and controlled motivation (r = 0.34, p < 0.001), while autonomous motivation (r = −0.27, p <
0.05) was significantly negatively related to shallow cognitive engagement. No significant
effect of teacher support and self-efficacy perceptions on shallow cognitive engagement
was found.
Fourth, emotional engagement in situation was significantly positively affected by teacher
support perception (r = 0.30, p < 0.001), social support perception (r = 0.28, p < 0.001), self-
efficacy (r = 0.23, p < 0.05) and autonomous motivation (r = 0.46, p < 0.001). No significant
effect of media support and controlled motivation perceptions on emotional engagement
were found.
Results of moderation relationship
To address RQ 3, we estimated a set of slopes as outcome models, in which cross-level

interactions were included. In the full model, the level-1 variables were allowed to vary
CLASSROOMS |
1679
T A B L E 4 Full model results of HLM for all dependent variables
Behavioural Deep cognitive Shallow cognitive Emotional

Full model engagement engagement engagement engagement
Fixed effect
Intercept 4.37(0.06)*** 4.60(0.05)*** 3.28(0.07)*** 4.47(0.06)***
Within-individual level
Media support −0.01(0.05) 0.03(0.04) 0.22(0.05)*** 0.03(0.04)
Teacher support 0.08(0.07) 0.21(0.07)** 0.09(0.09) 0.30(0.07)***
Social support 0.29(0.06)*** 0.16(0.05)*** 0.11(0.05)* 0.28(0.05)***
Between-individual level
Self-efficacy −0.01(0.13) 0.28(0.09)** −0.03(0.12) 0.23(0.10)*
Autonomous motivation 0.53(0.11)*** 0.30(0.08)*** −0.27(0.12)* 0.46(0.10)***
Controlled motivation 0.17(0.08)* 0.07(0.06) 0.34(0.09)*** 0.03(0.07)
Cross-level interaction
Autonomous motivation * – 0.23(0.06)*** 0.09(0.07) 0.04(0.10)
Teacher support
Controlled motivation * – – 0.001(0.05) –
Teacher support
Self-efficacy * Teacher – −0.12(0.07) – 0.10(0.08)
support
Autonomous motivation * −0.04(0.10) −0.10(0.12) 0.02(0.08) 0.02(0.11)
Social support
Controlled motivation * 0.12(0.06)* – 0.002(0.06) –
Social support
Self-efficacy * Social – 0.02(0.09) – −0.09(0.08)
support
Random effect (variance)
Between-individual 0.317 0.704 0.532 0.704
Within-individual 0.468 0.267 0.596 0.282
Model comparison
Chi-square 65.47*** 71.97*** 49.61*** 130.25***
Degrees of freedom 6 6 6 6
R-SQUARE 0.33(0.09)*** 0.45(0.10)*** 0.22(0.09)* 0.45(0.09)***
Note: Standardized regression parameter (standard error).
The model is the slopes as outcomes model and full model.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
randomly in the final series of models. We tested cross-level interactions successively to

determine whether the slope for the three students' motivation variables varied significantly
across individuals. One interaction term (controlled motivation × perception of social sup-
port) was significant. As indicated in Figure 5, when the perceived social support level in-
creased, student behavioural engagement also increased, which was steeper for students
with higher controlled motivation than for those with lower controlled motivation. Specifically,
when students had high controlled motivation (controlled motivation = 1 standard deviation),
a one-unit increase in the perception of social support was associated with a 0.41 standard
deviation increase in behavioural engagement. Comparatively, when students had low con-
trolled motivation (controlled motivation = −1 * standard deviation), a one-unit increase in
|
1680 LU et al.
F I G U R E 5 Association of behavioural engagement to perception of social support for higher and lower
controlled motivation students
F I G U R E 6 Association of deep cognitive engagement to the perception of teacher support for higher and
lower autonomous motivation students
the perception of social support was associated with a 0.17 standard deviation increase in
behavioural engagement.
Another interaction term (autonomous motivation × perception of teacher support) was
also significant. Figure 6 shows that as the perceived teacher support level increased, deep
cognitive engagement increased for students with high autonomous motivation, while stu-
dent deep cognitive engagement was stable for those with lower autonomous motivation.
CLASSROOMS |
1681
Specifically, when students had high autonomous motivation (autonomous motivation = 1

standard deviation), a one-unit increase in the perception of teacher support was associated
with a 0.44 standard deviation increase in deep strategy use. Comparatively, when students
had low autonomous motivation (autonomous motivation = −1 standard deviation), a one-
unit increase in the perception of teacher support was associated with a −0.02 standard
deviation increase in deep strategy use.
D I SCUSS I O N
The present study contributes to the literature by taking a situational approach in examining
students' engagement in smart classrooms. In doing so, we adopted the ESM to capture
student experiences in the moment and in the context of learning. This in-situ data collec-
tion allowed us to study the nature of student situational engagement in smart classrooms
more accurately. By employing hierarchical linear regression modelling, we also explored
the influencing factors of the smart classroom environment on situational engagement. The
findings indicated that situational engagement varied greatly across different learning con-
texts. These trends further supported the need for examining whether and how contextual
and personal features influence students' real-time engagement, and in the context of smart
classrooms.
Relating environmental factors to situational engagement
Given the features in smart classrooms, such as interactions with teachers, peers and
media, our work focused on three salient factors—the perception of teacher support, social
support and media support. Our study found that the perception of teacher support and
social support were more important environmental factors than the perception of media sup-
port on the student's situational engagement.
More specifically, our study results showed that perceived teacher support was the
most influential factor for deep cognitive and emotional engagement. Similar results have
also been found in previous studies conducted in other learning contexts (eg, Chen, 2005;
Chiu, 2021; Wentzel et al., 2010). In a smart classroom environment, especially in collabora-
tive learning, teachers' evaluation, guidance and feedback are more important in promoting
the level of deep engagement and students' real-time emotional experiences.
Second, this study found that perception of social support was a significant predictor
of all situational engagement dimensions. This is quite similar to previous study findings
that the greater the perception of social support, the greater the active involvement (Cho
et al., 2015). The reason may be that the level of connectedness in the smart-classroom
learning environment is positively associated with reflective thinking and inquiry learning (Li
et al., 2019). Interaction with peers can improve students' interest and motivation, which will
lead them to participate more actively, pursue different ideas in more depth, work harder
to understand and absorb new knowledge and have positive emotional experiences (Luan
et al., 2020; Pöysä et al., 2019; Xie et al., 2017).
Third, contrary to what we expected, this study found that the perception of media support
was only associated with shallow cognitive engagement, and not with other types of en-
gagement. The results are similar to another study finding that the perceived effectiveness
of technology in the smart classroom was not related to learning outcomes (Van De Bogart
& Wichadee, 2016). As shallow cognitive engagement or strategies are only used to en-
code new information into short-term memory through memorization without understanding,
elaboration, metacognition and other deep cognitive processes (Craik & Lockhart, 1972;
|
1682 LU et al.
Greene, 2015), this study speculates that engagement driven by the attractiveness of media
to students is short-lived, and the impact of media support remains at the surface in cogni-
tive engagement.
Taken together, instruction- related factors are more important than technical factors
in promoting students' deep cognitive engagement and real-time emotional engagement,
which echoed what was highlighted by the PST model (Wang, 2009). Pedagogical and so-
cial affordances are the primary factors that influence the effectiveness of learning, while
technology support is the supporting tool of the former two (Wang, 2009). The effect of
technology on students' situational engagement is limited, according to our results, which in-
dicated that technology support only promotes superficial cognitive engagement. Therefore,
future studies should focus on how technological affordance supports the pedagogical and
social affordances in a technology-rich learning environment.
Relating personal factors to situational engagement
Overall, our findings echoed social cognitive theory, in which self-efficacy as a personal
factor is regarded to influence student behaviour (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Schunk
& Mullen, 2012; Sökmen, 2021; Xie et al., 2019b). The findings of our study extended this
theory by conceptualizing student behaviour using situational engagement theories and
proving that students' self-efficacy exerts different influences on different dimensions of
situational engagement, in specific contexts. Specifically, we examined the course-specific
self-efficacy reported prior to activity engagement, which is addressed as a characteristic.
Results from our study supported that self-efficacy was a significant positive predictor of
deep cognitive and emotional engagement in follow-up learning activities in smart class-
rooms, though it did not predict shallow cognitive engagement. Our findings are in line with
previous research suggesting that self-efficacy did not predict shallow cognitive engage-
ment, but meaningful cognitive engagement (eg, Walker et al., 2006). That means students
with a high-level perception of their ability to complete the course, utilize learning resources
better and have better emotional experience at the moment. However, unlike other studies
(eg, Sökmen, 2021), this study did not find any association between behavioural engage-
ment and self-efficacy. Other studies (eg, Sökmen, 2021) focused on overall engagement;
however, this study focused on situational engagement. With the fluctuation of situational
engagement, perhaps, other variables may better explain the variance in behavioural en-
gagement. Future studies may further examine the role of self-efficacy in impacting situ-
ational engagement versus overall engagement.
This study also found that autonomous motivation positively predicted all dimensions
of situational engagement, except for shallow cognitive engagement, while controlled mo-
tivation was only a significant predictor of shallow cognitive engagement and behavioural
engagement. Our findings are in line with self-determination theory, in which autonomous
and controlled motivations drive engagement (Deci & Ryan, 2008). In a smart classroom en-
vironment, students with higher levels of autonomous motivation were more interested and
motivated to learn, which caused higher situational engagement. The result was in line with
the previous study (Reeve, 2013), which showed that autonomous motivation was positively
associated with all engagement aspects. This study verified the crucial role of autonomous
motivation for situational engagement in a smart classroom.
In addition, controlled motivation refers to a motivational source that initiates and domi-
nates behaviour by external social expectation forces (Cai & Liem, 2017; Xie et al., 2020).
Although controlled motivation is linked to positive participation in academic activities, it
could also lead to shallower cognitive engagement (Walker et al., 2006). Therefore, be-
cause the drive is external, the effect of controlled motivation on situational engagement is
CLASSROOMS |
1683
limited and relatively weak. Compared with autonomous motivation, controlled motivation is
less adaptive for student engagement in the academic learning context (Cai & Liem, 2017;
Reeve, 2013).
This result indicated the role of autonomous and controlled motivations as distal factors
in driving students' real-time engagement, while autonomous motivation exerts more effects
on students' meaningful engagement. Hence, according to self-determination theory, in-
structors can improve students' autonomous motivation to meet their needs for relatedness,
competence and autonomy through the provision of warmth, structure and support for their
autonomy (Skinner & Pitzer, 2012).
Moderation relationship
Currently, the literature on cross-level interactions in situational engagement is scarce. Our

study indicated evidence of significant moderation; that is, personal motivational factors can
moderate the relationship between environmental perception and situational engagement.
Specifically, this study found that the effect of teacher support perception on deep cog-
nitive engagement in the specific context was moderated by autonomous motivation. For
students with higher levels of autonomous motivation, teacher support perceived had sig-
nificantly higher predicting power on students' deep cognitive engagement, as compared
to students with lower levels of autonomous motivation. That is, motivation as a personal
characteristic may influence how students are able to translate contextual variables into how
they engage cognitively in the moment. One possible explanation may be that, for higher au-
tonomic motivation, students may take the initiative to understand and process the support
provided by teachers, which prompts them to adopt deep cognitive strategies in a setting,
to achieve the expected goal of mastering knowledge. This is in line with self-determination
theory (Ryan & Deci, 2020).
Another remarkable finding was that the effect of perception of social support on be-
havioural engagement was moderated by controlled motivation. For students with high con-
trolled motivation, their perceived social support had much stronger association with their
behavioural engagement as compared to students with low controlled motivation. That is,
perceived social support was much more effective in influencing students' behaviour en-
gagement when students had higher level of controlled motivation. One explanation may be
that, as self-determination theory argues, students with controlled motivation participate in
learning tasks because of external expectations (Cai & Liem, 2017; Xie et al., 2020, 2021).
Therefore, the higher the social support, the higher the social expectations that students
perceive (Ryan & Deci, 2020). It is more possible to complete explicit behaviours in learning
to meet social expectations (Cai & Liem, 2017).
These findings are interesting, given that behavioural engagement involves observable
and overt behaviour (Henrie et al., 2015), which may be driven by controlled motivation or
social support, and deep cognitive engagement entails implicit and psychological investment
(such as the degree of cognitive strategy use; Greene, 2015), which is driven more by au-
tonomous motivation and teacher support. Students may behaviourally, but not cognitively
engage (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003). We found that the interaction between autonomous
motivation and teacher support promotes deep cognitive engagement in smart classrooms.
CO NCLUS I O N
To conclude, our study contributes to the existing literature by investigating situational en-
gagement (not overall engagement) in a technology-rich environment. Instead of traditional
|
1684 LU et al.
self-reports, an innovative sampling method was employed to capture momentary responses

to specific learning contexts. This repeated measurement design allowed us to pay special
attention to the influence of between-individual and within-individual variables on student
engagement in specific learning contexts. This expands the current understanding of situ-
ational engagement and hastens a paradigm shift in research on student engagement. In
addition, this study contributes to the understanding of how personal factors and environ-
mental factors affect the fluctuation of students' engagement in specific task situations.
Despite these important contributions, this study has some limitations. First, some influ-
encing factors may not be included in the model, besides the perception of the learning envi-
ronment and students' motivation. For example, learning activity types play an important role
in situational engagement (Schmidt et al., 2018). Second, this study used only questionnaire
data from the pretest and ESM measures. It would be more convincing if some other multi-
modal data (such as interviews, observation data and log data) were included in the analysis
of the detailed application of media and technology in smart classrooms. Future studies can
further examine the intricate relationships among personal and environmental factors, and
situational engagement in technology-rich environments, using a mixed method. Third, only
three courses were selected to investigate the factors influencing student situational en-
gagement in smart classrooms. Future research can investigate the impact of other factors
(such as learning locations and activities) on situational engagement in more samples using
ESM.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant/Award
Number: 61977035].
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There is no potential conflict of interest in this study.
E T H I C S S TAT E M E N T
Appropriate permissions and ethical approval were requested and approved.
D ATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T

To ensure confidentiality, students' personal identifiers were removed prior to processing the
data. The authors provide free and open access to the SPSS file and HLM analysis results
of the study through the email as soon as the manuscript is published online.
ORCID
Guoqing Lu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7884-2967
Kui Xie https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7173-4859
REFERENCES
Azila-Gbettor, E. M., & Abiemo, M. K. (2020). Moderating effect of perceived lecturer support on academic self-
efficacy and study engagement: Evidence from a Ghanaian university. Journal of Applied Research in Higher
Education, 13(4), 991–1006. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE- 0 4-2020- 0 079
Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It's not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active
learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78, 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839x.00024
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors' autonomy support and students' autonomous mo-
tivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6),
740–756. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<740:AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-3
CLASSROOMS |
1685
Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience
sampling research. Guilford Press.
Bond, M. (2020). Facilitating student engagement through the flipped learning approach in K-12: A systematic
review. Computers & Education, 151, 103819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103819
Brooks, D. C. (2017, March). Active learning classrooms: The top strategic technology for 2017 (EDUCAUSE
Center for Analysis and Research report). https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2017/3/active -learning-classrooms
-the-top-strategic-technology-for-2017
Cai, E. Y. L., & Liem, G. A. D. (2017). ‘Why do I study and what do I want to achieve by studying?’ Understanding
the reasons and the aims of student engagement. School Psychology International, 38(2), 131–148. https://
doi.org/10.1177/014303 4316686399
Chang, T. W., Hsu, J. M., & Yu, P. T. (2011). A comparison of single-and dual-screen environment in programming
language: Cognitive loads and learning effects. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 188–
200. https://doi.org/10.2307/jeductechsoci.14.2.188
Chen, J. J. L. (2005). Relation of academic support from parents, teachers, and peers to Hong Kong adoles-
cents' academic achievement: The mediating role of academic engagement. Genetic, Social, and General
Psychology Monographs, 131(2), 77–127. https://doi.org/10.3200/mono.131.2.77-127
Chen, P. S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based
learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222–1232. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008
Cheng, T. S., Lu, Y. C., & Yang, C. S. (2015). Using the multi-display teaching system to lower cognitive load.
Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 128–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/jeductechsoci.18.4.128
Chiu, T. K. (2021). Digital support for student engagement in blended learning based on self-determination theory.
Computers in Human Behavior, 124, 106909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106909
Cho, Y. H., Yim, S. Y., & Paik, S. (2015). Physical and social presence in 3D virtual role-play for pre-service
teacher. Internet and Higher Education, 25, 70–77.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Eribaum.
Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022- 5371(72)80001-x
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, develop-
ment, and health. Canadian psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0012801
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/10.2307/3516061
Goetz, T., Sticca, F., Pekrun, R., Murayama, K., & Elliot, A. J. (2016). Intraindividual relations between achieve-
ment goals and discrete achievement emotions: An experience sampling approach. Learning and Instruction,
41, 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.10.007
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
Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling method: Measuring the quality
of everyday life. Sage Publications.
Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated
learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36– 53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.005
Inkinen, J., Klager, C., Juuti, K., Schneider, B., Salmela-Aro, K., Krajcik, J., & Lavonen, J. (2020). High school stu-
dents' situational engagement associated with scientific practices in designed science learning situations.
Science Education, 104(4), 667–692. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21570
Janna, I., Christopher, K., Barbara, S., Kalle, J., Joseph, K., Jari, L., & Katariina, S. A. (2019). Science classroom
activities and student situational engagement. International Journal of Science Education, 41(3), 316–329.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1549372
Ketonen, E. E., Dietrich, J., Moeller, J., Salmela-Aro, K., & Lonka, K. (2018). The role of daily autonomous and
controlled educational goals in students' academic emotion states: An experience sampling method ap-
proach. Learning and Instruction, 53, 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.07.003
Lazarides, R., Gaspard, H., & Dicke, A. L. (2019). Dynamics of classroom motivation: Teacher enthusiasm and
the development of math interest and teacher support. Learning and Instruction, 60, 126–137. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.012
Li, Y., Yang, H. H., & MacLeod, J. (2019). Preferences toward the constructivist smart classroom learning environ-
ment: Examining pre-service teachers' connectedness. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(3), 349–362.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1474232
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
Luan, L., Hong, J. C., Cao, M., Dong, Y., & Hou, X. (2020). Exploring the role of online EFL learners' perceived
social support in their learning engagement: A structural equation model. Interactive Learning Environments,
1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1855211
|
1686 LU et al.
MacLeod, J., Yang, H. H., Zhu, S., & Li, Y. (2018). Understanding students' preferences toward the smart class-
room learning environment: Development and validation of an instrument. Computers & Education, 122,
80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.015
Manwaring, K. C., Larsen, R., Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Halverson, L. R. (2017). Investigating student
engagement in blended learning settings using experience sampling and structural equation modeling. The
Internet and Higher Education, 35, 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.06.002
Molinillo, S., Aguilar-Illescas, R., Anaya-Sánchez, R., & Vallespín-Arán, M. (2018). Exploring the impacts of inter-
actions, social presence and emotional engagement on active collaborative learning in a social web-based
environment. Computers & Education, 123, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.012
Park, S., Holloway, S. D., Arendtsz, A., Bempechat, J., & Li, J. (2012). What makes students engaged in learning?
A time-use study of within-and between-individual predictors of emotional engagement in low-performing
high schools. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(3), 390–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964 -011-9738-3
Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson,
A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 259–282). Springer.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom
academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/002
2- 0 663.82.1.33
Pöysä, S., Poikkeus, A. M., Muotka, J., Vasalampi, K., & Lerkkanen, M. K. (2020). Adolescents' engagement pro-
files and their association with academic performance and situational engagement. Learning and Individual
Differences, 82, 101922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101922
Pöysä, S., Vasalampi, K., Muotka, J., Lerkkanen, M. K., Poikkeus, A. M., & Nurmi, J. E. (2018). Variation in
situation-specific engagement among lower secondary school students. Learning and Instruction, 53, 64–
73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.07.007
Pöysä, S., Vasalampi, K., Muotka, J., Lerkkanen, M. K., Poikkeus, A. M., & Nurmi, J. E. (2019). Teacher–student
interaction and lower secondary school students' situational engagement. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89(2), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12244
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods
(Vol. 1). Sage.
Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The con-
cept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0032690
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting
in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 749–761. https://doi.org/10.1037/002
2-3514.57.5.749
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective:
Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
Saini, M. K., & Goel, N. (2019). How smart are smart classrooms? A review of smart classroom technologies.
ACM Computing Surveys, 52(6), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3365757
Schmidt, J. A., Rosenberg, J. M., & Beymer, P. N. (2018). A person-in-context approach to student engagement in
science: Examining learning activities and choice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(1), 19–43.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21409
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 60, 101832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832
Schunk, D. H., & Mullen, C. A. (2012). Self-efficacy as an engaged learner. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, &
C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 219–235). Springer.
Sembiring, M. G. (2018). Modelling the determinants of effective online tutoring programs. Turkish Online Journal
of Distance Education, 19(3), 128–139. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.445114
Shernoff, D. J. (2010). The experience of student engagement in high school classrooms: Influences and effects
on long-term outcomes. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.
Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resil-
ience. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement
(pp. 21–4 4). Springer.
Sökmen, Y. (2021). The role of self-efficacy in the relationship between the learning environment and student
engagement. Educational Studies, 47(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1665986
Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical
investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–
1202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007
Sun, Z., Xie, K., & Anderman, L. (2018). The role of self-regulated learning in students' success in flipped undergrad-
uate math courses. Internet and Higher Education, 36, 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.09.003
CLASSROOMS |
1687
Symonds, J. E., Kaplan, A., Upadyaya, K., Salmela Aro, K., Torsney, B. M., Skinner, E., & Eccles, J. S. (2020).
Momentary student engagement as a dynamic developmental system. Faculty/Researcher Works. https://
doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/fuy7p
Tang, T. L. P., & Austin, M. J. (2009). Students' perceptions of teaching technologies, application of technologies,
and academic performance. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1241–1255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe
du.2009.06.007
Thijs, J., & Verkuyten, M. (2009). Students' anticipated situational engagement: The roles of teacher behav-
ior, personal engagement, and gender. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 170(3), 268–286. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00221320903218323
Torsney, B. M., & Symonds, J. E. (2019). The professional student program for educational resilience: Enhancing
momentary engagement in classwork. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(6), 676–692. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00220671.2019.1687414
Van De Bogart, W., & Wichadee, S. (2016). Students' perceived effectiveness of educational technologies and
motivation in smart classroom. TEM Journal, 5(4), 566–574. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM54-22
Walker, C. O., Greene, B. A., & Mansell, R. A. (2006). Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation,
and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.06.004
Wang, Q. (2009). Guiding teachers in the process of ICT integration: Analysis of three conceptual models.
Educational Technology, 49(5), 23–27.
Wentzel, K. R., Battle, A., Russell, S. L., & Looney, L. B. (2010). Social supports from teachers and peers as pre-
dictors of academic and social motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 193–202. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.002
Xie, K. (2013). What do the numbers say? The influence of motivation and peer feedback on students' be-
havior in online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 288–301. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01291.x
Xie, K., Heddy, B. C., & Greene, B. A. (2019a). Affordances of using mobile technology to support experience-
sampling method in examining college students' engagement. Computers & Education, 128, 183–198.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.020
Xie, K., Heddy, B. C., & Vongkulluksn, V. W. (2019b). Examining engagement in context using experience-
sampling method with mobile technology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 101788. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101788
Xie, K., & Huang, K. (2014). The role of beliefs and motivation in asynchronous online learning in college-level
classes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(3), 317–3 43. https://doi.org/10.2190/ec.50.3.b
Xie, K., & Ke, F. (2011). The role of students' motivation in peer-moderated asynchronous online discussions.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 916–930. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2010.01140.x
Xie, K., Lu, L., Cheng, S. L., & Izmirli, S. (2017). The interactions between facilitator identity, conflictual presence,
and social presence in peer-moderated online collaborative learning. Distance Education, 38(2), 230–244.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1322458
Xie, K., Vongkulluksn, V. W., Cheng, S. L., & Jiang, Z. (2021). Examining high-school students' motivation
change through a person-centered approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(1), 89–107. https://
doi.org/10.1037/edu000 0507
Xie, K., Vongkulluksn, V. W., Lu, L., & Cheng, S.-L. (2020). A person-centered approach to examining high-school
students' motivation, engagement and academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 62,
101877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101877
Zirkel, S., Garcia, J. A., & Murphy, M. C. (2015). Experience-sampling research methods and their potential for
education research. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x14566879
S U P P O R T I N G I N F O R M AT I O N
Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of the article at the
publisher’s website.
How to cite this article: Lu, G., Xie, K., & Liu, Q. (2022). What influences student
situational engagement in smart classrooms: Perception of the learning environment
and students' motivation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53, 1665–1687.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13204

Brit J Educational Tech - 2022 - Lu - What Influences Student Situational Engagement in Smart Classrooms Perception of The

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brit J Educational Tech - 2022 - Lu - What Influences Student Situational Engagement in Smart Classrooms Perception of The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

14678535, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13204 by Ist Politecnico De Lisboa, Wiley Online Library on [04/02/2023].

What influences student situational

Guoqing Lu1 | Kui Xie2 | Qingtang Liu1

© 2022 British Educational Research Association

Br J Educ Technol. 2022;53:1665–1687. ﻿ |

support, self-­efficacy and autonomous motivation to

Situational engagement in smart classroom

As proved by a body of literature, situational engagement is a multidimensional struc-

Situational engagement as a product of environmental and

Situational engagement is presumed to be malleable, varying from one learning context to

F I G U R E 1 Model of reciprocal determinism

Environmental factors: Perception of smart classroom environment

Personal factors: Self-­efficacy and motivation

Experience sampling method

F I G U R E 2 Model of situational engagement

dĂďůĞ dĂďůĞ dĂďůĞ

F I G U R E 3 The layout of the smart classroom environment

Time Line of Experiment

Pretest: Situational engagement Situational engagement

1st week 2nd week Ă 18th week

F I G U R E 4 Data collection procedure

Data analytical procedure

Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis

T A B L E 2 Descriptive statistics and Pearson's correlations

3. Controlled motivation 105 3.29 0.84 −0.16 0.22 0.10* 0.020 1

T A B L E 3 Variance components for student engagement

Results of moderation relationship

To address RQ 3, we estimated a set of slopes as outcome models, in which cross-­level

T A B L E 4 Full model results of HLM for all dependent variables

Behavioural Deep cognitive Shallow cognitive Emotional

randomly in the final series of models. We tested cross-­level interactions successively to

Specifically, when students had high autonomous motivation (autonomous motivation = 1

Relating environmental factors to situational engagement

Relating personal factors to situational engagement

Currently, the literature on cross-­level interactions in situational engagement is scarce. Our

self-­reports, an innovative sampling method was employed to capture momentary responses

D ATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T

You might also like

Br J Educ Technol. 2022;53:1665–1687. |

support, self-efficacy and autonomous motivation to

Personal factors: Self-efficacy and motivation

To address RQ 3, we estimated a set of slopes as outcome models, in which cross-level

randomly in the final series of models. We tested cross-level interactions successively to

Currently, the literature on cross-level interactions in situational engagement is scarce. Our

self-reports, an innovative sampling method was employed to capture momentary responses