Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

An Investigation of College Students’ Learning Engagement and Classroom Preferences Under the Smart Classroom Environment

  • Original Research
  • Published:
SN Computer Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A structural equation modeling analysis was conducted to investigate the relationship between the classroom preferences of college students and learning engagement (LE) in the smart classroom learning environment. Furthermore, multiple regression analysis was conducted to investigate the impact of smart classroom preferences on the sub-dimensions of LE. A total of 275 college students, who had studied in the smart classroom environment at least for a semester, responded to the survey. The results showed that three of the eight dimensions of smart classroom preferences, i.e., inquiry learning, reflective thinking, and multiple sources, have a significant positive influence on LE. Noteworthy, inquiry learning and multiple sources could significantly predict behavioral engagement; while inquiry learning, reflective thinking, and multiple sources could predict both emotional engagement and cognitive engagement. These findings of this research have practical implications for instructors and instructional designers; in that they should focus on the key factors that predict students’ different dimensions of LE.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Archer-Kuhn B, Lee Y, Finnessey S, Liu J. Inquiry-based learning as a facilitator to student engagement in undergraduate and Graduate Social Work Programs. Teach Learn Inquiry 2020;8(1):187–207. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.8.1.13.

  2. Banchi H, Bell R. The many levels of inquiry. Sci Child. 2008;46(2):26.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bayne S, Ross J. MOOC pedagogy. In: Kim P (ed) Massive open online courses: the MOOC revolution. Oxford, Routledge. 2015.

  4. Bell RL, Smetana L, Binns I. Simplifying inquiry instruction. Sci Teach. 2005;72(7):30–3.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brooks DC. Active learning classrooms: the top strategic technology for 2017. EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research report. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2017/3/active-learning-classrooms-the-top-strategic-technology-for-2017.2017

  6. Chang C, Hsiao C, Chang Y. Science learning outcomes in alignment with learning environment preferences. J Sci Educ Technol. 2010;20(2):136–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9240-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen HT, Wang HH, Lu YY, Lin HS, Hong ZR. Using a modified argument-driven inquiry to promote elementary school students’ engagement in learning science and argumentation. Int J Sci Educ. 2016;38(2):170–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1134849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen IS. Computer self-efficacy, learning performance, and the mediating role of learning engagement. Comput Hum Behav. 2017;72:362–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chen MRA, Hwang GJ, Chang YY. A reflective thinking-promoting approach to enhancing graduate students’ flipped learning engagement, participation behaviors, reflective thinking and project learning outcomes. Br J Edu Technol. 2019;50(5):2288–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chuang SC, Tsai CC. Preferences toward the constructivist internet-based learning environments among high school students in Taiwan. Comput Hum Behav. 2005;21(2):255–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 1988.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Dewey J. How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process Heath and Company, Boston: MA: D.C. 1933.

  13. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fraser BJ. Science learning environments: assessment, effects and determinants. In BJ Fraser, KG Tobin (eds), International handbook of science education. 1998; (pp. 527–561). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  15. Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld P, Friedel J, Paris A. School engagement. In KA Moore, L Lippman (eds), What do children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development. New York, Springer. 2005;pp. 305–321.

  16. Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH. School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev Educ Res. 2004;74(1):59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Helmstadter GC. Principles of psychological measurement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Herron MD. The nature of scientific enquiry. Sch Rev. 1971;79(2):171–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hwang G, Lai C, Liang J, Chu H, Tsai C. A long-term experiment to investigate the relationships between high school students’ perceptions of mobile learning and peer interaction and higher order thinking tendencies. Educ Tech Res Dev. 2017;66(1):75–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9540-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jung Y, Lee J. Learning engagement and persistence in massive open online courses (MOOCS). Comput Educ. 2018;122:9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ke F, Xie K, Xie Y. Game-based learning engagement: a theory-and data-driven exploration. Br J Edu Technol. 2016;47(6):1183–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Li B, Kong SC, Chen G. Development and validation of the smart classroom inventory. Smart Learn Environ. 2015;2(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-015-0012-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Li Y, Yang HH, MacLeod J. Preferences toward the constructivist smart classroom learning environment: examining pre-service teachers’ connectedness. Interact Learn Environ. 2019;27(3):349–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1474232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Li Y, Yang H H, MacLeod J, Dai J. Developing the rotational synchronous teaching (RST) model: examination of the connected classroom climate. Aust J Educ Technol. 2019;35(1):116–134. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4010.

  25. Liang D, Jia J, Wu X, Miao J, Wang A. Analysis of learners’ behaviors and learning outcomes in a massive open online course. Knowl Manag E-Learn. 2014;6(3):281–298. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2014.06.019.

  26. Looi CK, Seow P, Zhang B, So HJ, et al. Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: a research agenda. Br J Edu Technol. 2010;41(2):154–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00912.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lu J, Churchill D. The effect of social interaction on learning engagement in a social networking environment. Interact Learn Environ. 2014;22(4):401–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.680966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lu K, Yang HH, Shi Y, Wang X. Examining the key influencing factors on college students’ higher order thinking skills in the smart classroom environment. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2021;18(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00238-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lu K, Yang H, Xue H. Investigating the four-level inquiry continuum on college students’ higher order thinking and peer interaction tendencies. Int J Innovat Learn. 2021;30(3):358–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Macleod J, Yang HH, Zhu S, Li Y. Understanding students’ preferences toward the smart classroom learning environment: development and validation of an instrument. Comput Educ. 2018;122:80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Schwab JJ. The teaching of science as inquiry. Bull Atom Sci. 1958;14(9):374–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.1958.11453895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shi Y, Peng C, Wang S, Yang HH. The effects of smart classroom-based instruction on college students’ learning engagement and internet self-efficacy. In International Conference on Blended Learning.2018; (pp. 263–274). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94505-7_21.

  34. Sun JCY, Rueda R. Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: their impact on student engagement in distance education. Br J Edu Technol. 2012;43(2):191–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tsai CC. The preferences toward constructivist internet-based learning environments among university students in Taiwan. Comput Hum Behav. 2008;24(1):16–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.12.002.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Tsai PS, Tsai CC, Hwang GJ. Developing a survey for assessing preferences in constructivist context-aware ubiquitous learning environments. J Comput Assist Learn. 2012;28(3):250–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00436.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Uztosun MS, Skinner N, Cadorath J. An action research study into the role of student negotiation in enhancing perceived student engagement during English speaking classes at university level in Turkey. Educ Act Res. 2018;26(1):106–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2016.1270223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Webster J, Hackley P. Teaching effectiveness in technology-mediated distance learning. Acad Manag J. 1997;40(6):1282–309. https://doi.org/10.5465/257034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education Science and Technology, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Jiangsu, 210023, Nanjing, China

    Kaili Lu

  2. National Engineering Research Centre for E-Learning, Central China Normal University, Hubei, 430079, Wuhan, China

    Yinghui Shi & Harrison Hao Yang

  3. National Engineering Laboratory for Educational Big Data, Central China Normal University, Hubei, 430079, Wuhan, China

    Jie Li

  4. School of Education, State University of New York at Oswego, Oswego, NY, 13126, USA

    Harrison Hao Yang

  5. School of Chinese Language and Literature, Central China Normal University, Hubei, 430079, Wuhan, China

    Min Xu

Authors
  1. Kaili Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yinghui Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jie Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Harrison Hao Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Min Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harrison Hao Yang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all the authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lu, K., Shi, Y., Li, J. et al. An Investigation of College Students’ Learning Engagement and Classroom Preferences Under the Smart Classroom Environment. SN COMPUT. SCI. 3, 205 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-022-01093-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-022-01093-1

Keywords