See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325950620

A research on the effect of smartphone use, student engagement and self-

directed learning on individual impact: China empirical study.(EI Compendex
list)

Conference Paper · July 2018

DOI: 10.1109/ISET.2018.00056

CITATIONS READS

0 151

4 authors, including:

Ivan Lai Ka Yin Chau

City University of Macau City University of Macau
86 PUBLICATIONS   481 CITATIONS    44 PUBLICATIONS   52 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

University Requirement: between F1000 index and SSCI,SCI,Etc View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ka Yin Chau on 23 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Research on the effect of Smartphone use, Student
engagement and Self-Directed Learning on Individual
Impact: China empirical study
Zhang, TAO XiaoYang, YANG
Guangxi Teachers Macau University of
Education University, Science and Technology,
Nanning, China Macau, China
zhangtao@gxtc.edu.cn sscolins@163.com
Abstract — The smartphone makes opportunities to extend
teaching and learning locations from traditional classrooms to
almost anywhere. This study examines the interrelation among
smartphone use, student engagement, self-directed learning and
individual impact of phone users. This study proposes a theoretical
model integrating the technology acceptance model and D&M IS
Success Model. The model is empirically validated through a
quantitative method of structural equation modeling (SEM). The
results show that (1) smartphone use and self-directed learning
have significant positive effects on individual impact, (2)
smartphone use and student engagement have significant positive
effects on SDL, and (3) smartphone use has a significant positive
effect on student engagement.
Keywords 1 — smartphone; self-directed learning; student
engagement; individual impact; structural equation modeling
I. INTRODUCTION
With the advances in wireless and communication
technology, smartphones have become widely available, more
convenient, and are relatively cheap (Wu, W. H, et al., 2012).
According to the International Telecommunications Union,
there were 96.88 Mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions per
100 inhabitants at the end of 2016, and the shipments of
smartphones were 4,590 million in 2017 (Canalys estimates,
January 2018 ) in China. All age groups show an interest in
owning a smartphone; school and university students are the
most interested in possessing smartphones on which they spend
time (Aljomaa, S. S., 2016). Mobile devices like smartphone
make opportunities to extend teaching and learning locations
from traditional classrooms to almost anywhere (Kirschner, at
el., 2004) and provide more interesting methods of teaching and
learning (Chee, K. N, et al., 2017). These developments in
technology and proliferation of devices support and promote
teaching and learning, and research on smartphone-based
learning has expanded significantly (Kukulska-Hulme, Traxler,
2007).
1 This research is funded by teaching reform projects of Guangxi Teachers
Education University: Blended Learning on Supply Chain Management
Ivan Ka-Wai, LAI Ka.Yin. Chau
City University of City University of Macau
Macau, Macau, China
Macau, China gavinchau@cityu.mo
ivanlai@cityu.mo
This growing quantity of literature has focused on several
areas including the development of smartphone-based learning
systems to support student learning (e.g., Kim, H, 2013; Wen,
C., and Zhang, J, 2015; Su, C. H, and Cheng, C. H, 2015; Shin,
D. H., et al., 2011; Anshari, M. et al., 2017). However, there
are some unanswered questions in students’ perspectives. One
of the most important questions is ‘what are the
interrelationship among smartphone use, learning engagement,
self-directed learning. and individual impact.’
It is important to investigate the effectiveness and efficacy of
technology used in learning and teaching processes, so this study
tries to estimate the effect of smartphone use, engagement, and
self-directed learning to individual impact and the
interrelationship among these constructs by applying the media
and technology usage and attitudes scale (MTUAS) Rosen,
Whaling, Carrier, Cheever, & Rokkum, 2013) to propose a
smartphone-based learning system usage and attitudes model
that incorporates smartphone use, engagement, self-directed
learning, and individual impact.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. The Smartphone as a Technology Tool Used in Learning
With attempts to probe learner acceptance or resistance to
using digital devices, diverse theoretical models have been
proposed to account for a user's final acceptance behavior, such
as Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989) and
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)
(Venkatesh et al., 2003). UTAUT was further modified to
include more contextual factors, such as price value, and habit,
thus forming UTAUT2 (Venkatesh et al., 2012).
Smartphones, such as the iPhone and HUAWEI Honor
series, emerged as hybrids of PDAs (Personal Digital Assistants)
and mobile phones (Woodcock, et al., 2012) which can provide
powerful processors, abundant memory, larger screens and open
operating systems compared to traditional mobile phones
(Dong-Hee Shin, et al., 2011). These above features of
smartphones offer the possibility of their wide application in the
field of learning. Yung-Ting Chuang (2015) designed a
Smartphone-Supported Collaborative Learning System (SSCLS)
to enhancing learning satisfaction, promoting positive attitudes
toward subject matter, improving students’ teamwork skills,
encouraging more in-class participation, promoting greater in-
class attention and interaction, and developing higher-order
thinking (Srinivas, 2014). The recent research by Kor, Hakan,
et al. (2017) indicated that the lifelong learning is significantly
related to smartphone usage as it facilitates access to
information.
B. Theory Background
1) Student Engagement
Student engagement has been defined as “the extent of
students’ involvement and active participation in learning
activities” (Yang, 2011), “the effort, both in time and energy,
students commit to educationally purposeful activities” (Walker,
C. O and Greene, 2009), or “student psychological investment
in learning in terms of motivational interpretations and goals as
described in achievement goal theory” (Järvelä et al., 2008). The
theoretical models of the student engagement consist of
behavioral engagement, psychological engagement, and
cognitive engagement (Liu, Q, et al., 2016). One of the critical
features of student engagement is described as “the institution
deploys its resources and organizes the curriculum and other
learning opportunities to get students to participate in activities”
(a national survey of student engagement, NSSE).
2) Self-Directed Learning
Self-Directed Learning (SDL) is originated in research and
practice of adult (Randy Garrison, 1997). SDL is a method of
instruction that can be defined in terms of the amount of
responsibility the learner accepts for his or her own learning
(Fisher et al., 2010). The SDL refers to the intuitively desire to
be in control of decision making about the learning content and
learning method (Brockett, 1983), Knowles (1975) stated SDL
as “Basic human competence: the ability to learn on one’s own”.
Randy Garrison（1997）described the SDL model as having
three dimensions: self-management, self-monitoring, and
motivation. When Yang (2004) integrated on-site workshops
with an online learning community by means of a SDL system
to develop vocational college students’ autonomy, the research
results showed that the students achieved significantly better
learning outcomes in the post-test.
III. HYPOTHESES
The research model contains four constructs (as shown in
Fig. 1)： Smartphone use，student engagement, self-directed
learning, and individual impact.
A. Smartphone use and student engagement
The literature supports that using technology as an
educational tool can increase student engagement (Tabassum
Rashid and Hanan Muhammad Asghar, 2016; Junco, 2012;
Patera, Draper, & Naef, 2008), while McNeill, M, et al., (2011)
claimed that students in university prefer to use social
networking to support their learning. And some studies
suggested that the depth of engagement correlates to the depth
of learning (Tabassum Rashid and Hanan Muhammad Asghar,
2016), however, there is a question: does smartphone use
contribute to student engagement?
 H1. Smartphone use has a positive effect on student
engagement
B. Smartphone Use and SDL
 It is argued that technology-rich learning environment
can provide students with great opportunities and
abilities to be self-directed in their learning (Fischer, G.,
et al., 1998; Fahnoe & Mishra, 2013). Candy (2003)
suggested that there is a significant relationship between
self-directed learning and technologies. The results of
Tabassum et al.’s (2016) studyshowed that technology
use may have a positive impact on the SDL. H2.
Smartphone has a positive effect on SDL
C. Student engagement and SDL
Pike, G. R. et al. (2011) argued that learning participation is
positively and significantly related to student engagement after
they analyzed the data from the 2004 administration of the
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). Yang (2016)
stated that there is a significant correlation between student
engagement and SDL. The student engagement (eg. a sense of
confidence arises from joining group discussions frequently)
may enhance the SDL (Merriam, S. B. 2001).
 H3. Student engagement has a positive effect on SDL
D. Smartphone use, student engagemnet, SDL, and Individual
impact
DeLone and McLean (2003) proposed that there is a direct
association between system use and individual impact in their
D&M IS Success Model. Wilmar A. C., et al., (2017), Yung-Ting
Chuang (2015) and Chen, P. S. D (2010) proved that technology
using in learning can positively increase student engagement
and further influence learner performance. So paths connecting
student engagement and SDL, as well as SDL and individual
impact are also added to the hypothesized model.
 H4. Smartphone use has a positive effect on the
Individual Impact of smartphone user
 H5. Self-directed learning has a positive effect on the
Individual Impact of smartphone user.
IV. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
A. Instrument development
For the survey instrument, existing measures in related
literature were identified which had been repeatedly tested and
where strong content validity was exhibited. These measures
were then adapted to this research. The process of pretesting was
launched in an institution with a sample size of 50 college
students. Then, the instrument was refined based on the pretest
results and suggestions from interviewees. To make sure the
participants understand the survey instrument, some
explanations of the constructs will be provided. The instrument
and reference sources are shown in Table 1.
 Construct Theoretic
Code al Indicators
Support
Using a seven-point scale 1, strongly disagree; 7, strongly agree, the
variables are to be measured by asking students to rate their perception on
smartphone used in learning process.
Strongly disagree 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 Strongly agree
Use4 Store and share documents.
Use5 Execute course work.
At my learning with smartphone, I
SE1
feel bursting with energy
At my learning with smartphone, I
SE2
feel strong and vigorous
Schaufeli I am enthusiastic about my learning
SE3
W. B., et with smartphone.
SE4 al., 2006; At my learning inspires me.
Student When I get up in the morning, I feel
SE5 Schaufeli.
Engagement like going to learning.
W. B., & I feel happy when I am learning
SE6 Bakker, intensely.
Fig. 1. Proposed study model. A. B. , I am proud of the learning work that
SE7 2003 I do using smartphone.
I am immersed in my learning with
SE8
B. Participants smartphone.
I get carried away when I am
The study was conducted using a face-to-face questionnaire SE9
learning.
survey and participation in the survey was voluntary. A total of SDL
I am self-disciplined.
1
258 participants: 79 Secondary vocational school level, 19
SDL
vocational college level, and 160 bachelor or above level I set strict time frames
2 Murray J.
students. The participants were invited to complete the survey SDL Fisher and
I want to learn new information
and who could withdraw from the survey at any time. 21 Sel-directed 3 Jennie
Learning SDL King,
responses were dropped due to incomplete responses or have no 4 2010;
I enjoy learning new information
experience about smartphone use for learning purpose. The SDL I am responsible for my own
total number of valid responses was 207 consisting of 55 5 decisions/actions
SDL
(26.6%) males and 152 (73.4%) females. After collecting the 6
I have high beliefs in my abilities
data, data were coded and analyzed using mixed methods. The smartphone enables me to
II1 Nils accomplish tasks more quickly.
C. Measurement mode Urbach, et
The smartphone increases my
II2 al., 2010;
Data analysis was performed using PLS-SEM because PLS- Individual productivity.
Impact The smartphone makes it easier to
SEM has greater power for small sample sizes than covariance- II3 Cidral. W.
accomplish tasks.
based method (N Urbach, 2010; Hellberg, S., et. Al., 1985). It A., et al.,
2017 The smartphone is useful for my
II4
also does not have a strict demand of normal distribution learning job.
assumption on sample data. In this study, Smart-PLS version
3.2.7 was used (Ringle et al., 2015). Following the
recommendation from Hair et al. (2012), PLS bootstrap V. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
resampling procedure with an iteration of 5,000 sub-samples
replacement from the initial sample 207 was performed. All the A. Reliability and Validity
p-values of total effects are 0.000, so the model is stable. Measurement reliability was assessed using internal
consistency scores, calculated by the Cronbach's Alpha value.
Internal consistencies of all variables were considered
acceptable since all α ≥ 0.70, all of the Cronbach's Alpha values
TABLE I. CONSTRUCT, THEORETICAL SUPPORT AND INDICATORS in this study are ≥ 0.86, which means signifying acceptable
Construct Theoretic reliability. In Table 2, the composite reliability for all constructs
Code al Indicators exceeded 0.89. Thus, all constructs in the model exhibited a
Support
Using a seven-point scale 1, strongly disagree; 7, strongly agree, the
good internal consistency. Discriminant validity was assessed
variables are to be measured by asking students to rate their perception on based on the squared correlations between variables and the
smartphone used in learning process. square root of each construct's average variance extracted
Strongly disagree 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 Strongly agree
Please indicate the extent to which
(AVE), when the AVE is greater than squared correlations, the
Nils
Urbach, et you use the smartphone to perform discriminant validity is approved. The results showed in Table
Use1
Smartphone
al., 2010; the following tasks: 3 suggested that the discriminant validity was satisfied.
Retrieve information.
use The ᵡ2/degree of freedom ratio is 1.942, smaller than the value
Use2 Cidral W. Publish information.
A., et al., Communicate with colleagues and
of 3 which is recommended by Schermelleh- Engel,
Use3 2017 Moosbrugger and Muller (2003), and the Standardized Root
teachers.
Mean Square Residual (SRMR) Index = 0.071, is smaller than
0.1 which recommended by Kline (2011) and Hu & Bentler
(1999). The two indices satisfied the requirement of acceptable
fit in SEM which is recommended by Cangur & Ercan ( 2015).
In the other words, results of the path analysis indicated a
satisfactory fit of the model to the data.

TABLE II. CONSTRUCT RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

Statistics Value
Construct Average
Composite
Cronbach's Alpha Variance
Reliability
Extracted (AVE)
II 0.941 0.957 0.849

SDL 0.862 0.898 0.595

SE 0.950 0.957 0.714

Fig. 2. Path Anlysis Results
USE 0.914 0.935 0.744

Hypothesis 1 explored the relationship between smartphone

use and student engagement, which posited that USE should
TABLE III. DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY
influence the SE positively, this hypothesis was supported (β=
Statistics Value 0.616, p ≤0.01).
Construct PLS results provided support for H2, H3, H4, and H5. Which
II SDL SE USE
asserted that USE has an obvious positive impact on SDL (β=
II 0.921
0.371, p ≤0.01); SDL was positively associated with SE (β =
SDL 0.763 0.772 0.468, p≤0.01); SDL has a significantly positive influence on II
(β = 0.497, p≤0.01); and USE has significantly positive
SE 0.685 0.696 0.845
influence on II (β = 0.403, p≤0.01).
USE 0.731 0.659 0.616 0.862 Thus, all the five hypotheses were supported by the PLS
results.

B. Assessment of the structural model VI. DISCUSSION

The five hypotheses proposed above were tested collectively
using structural equation modeling (SEM) implemented via
partial least squares (PLS). The R2 values which represented the
amount of variance explained by the independent variables, and
estimates of the path coefficients, which indicated the strengths
of the relationships between the dependent and independent
variables. Together, the R2 and the path coefficients indicated
how well the data support the hypothesized model.
Fig. 2 illustrated the R2 and the resulting path coefficients of
the proposed research model. Individual impact was found to
be significantly determined by the two exogenous variables
smartphone USE and SDL through the direct effect, resulting in
an R2 of 0.673. Thus, the above mentioned variables explained
67.3% of variance in the individual. Likewise, SDL was found
to be significant determined by smartphone USE and student
engagement with an R2 of 0.570. Student engagement was
determined by smartphone USE with an R2 of 0.380, the
smartphone USE explains 38.0% of variance in the student
engagement.
For any educational organization worldwide, an argument
has always existed: does technology improve student learning
(Loveless, 2011) and student engagement (Tabassum Rashid,
Hanan Muhammad Asghar, 2016) and how to use technology
to improve learning. There have been a number of studies about
the role of technology use in learning, and some of these studies
indicated towards the negative relationship between technology
use and academic performance. (Junco and Cotten, 2012; Lepp
et al., 2014; Tabassum Rashid, Hanan Muhammad Asghar,
2016). In this study, we integrated the technology acceptance
model (TAM) and D&M IS Success Model to empirically exam
the relationship among smartphone (a specific technology) use,
student engagement, self-directed learning, and individual
impact. The study indicated that smartphone use positively
influences student engagement (H1), SDL (H2) and individual
impact (H4). Results indicated that student engagement has a
positive effect on SDL (H3), which was similar to the study
proposed by Candy in 2004. We found that SDL has a positive
effect on the individual impact of smartphone user, so we
suggested that education institutes rationally use technical
resources like smartphone to improve the effect and efficiency
of student learning, and take effective measures to prevent
addiction of digital devices.

REFERENCES
[1] Aljomaa, S. S., Qudah, M. F. A., Albursan, I. S., Bakhiet, S. F., &
Abduljabbar, A. S. (2016). Smartphone addiction among university
students in the light of some variables. Computers in Human
Behavior, 61, 155-164.
[2] Anshari, M., Almunawar, M. N., Shahrill, M., Wicaksono, D. K., & Huda,
M. (2017). Smartphones usage in the classrooms: Learning aid or
interference?. Education and Information Technologies, 22(6), 3063-
3079.
[3] Brockett, R. (1983). Self-directed learning and the hard-to-reach
adult. Lifelong learning: The adult years, 6(8), 16-18.
[4] Candy, P. C. (2004). Linking thinking: Self-directed learning in the digital
age. Canberra,, Australia: Department of Education, Science and
Training.
[5] Cangur, S., & Ercan, I. (2015). Comparison of Model Fit Indices Used in
Structural Equation Modeling Under Multivariate Normality. Journal of
Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 14(1), 14.
[6] Chee, K. N., Yahaya, N., Ibrahim, N. H., & Hasan, M. N. (2017). Review
of mobile learning trends 2010-2015: a meta-analysis. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 113-126.
[7] 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.
[8] Chuang, Y. T. (2015). SSCLS: A smartphone-supported collaborative
learning system. Telematics and Informatics, 32(3), 463-474.
[9] Chuang, Y. T. (2015). SSCLS: A smartphone-supported collaborative
learning system. Telematics and Informatics, 32(3), 463-474.
[10] Cidral, W. A., Oliveira, T., Di Felice, M., & Aparicio, M. (2017). E-
learning success determinants: Brazilian empirical study. Computers &
Education.
[11] Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance
of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical
models. Management science, 35(8), 982-1003.
[12] Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model
of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of
management information systems, 19(4), 9-30.
[13] Fahnoe, C., & Mishra, P. (2013, March). Do 21st century learning
environments support self-directed learning? Middle school students’
response to an intentionally designed learning environment. In Society
for Information Technology & Teacher Education International
Conference (pp. 3131-3139). Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education (AACE).
[14] Fischer, G., & Scharff, E. (1998). Learning technologies in support of
self-directed learning. Journal of Interactive Media in
Education, 1998(2).
[15] Fisher, M. J., & King, J. (2010). The self-directed learning readiness scale
for nursing education revisited: A confirmatory factor analysis. Nurse
Education Today, 30(1), 44-48.
[16] Fisher, M. J., & King, J. (2010). The self-directed learning readiness scale
for nursing education revisited: A confirmatory factor analysis. Nurse
Education Today, 30(1), 44-48.
[17] Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive
model. Adult education quarterly, 48(1), 18-33.
[18] Hellberg, S., Wold, S., Dunn, W. J., Gasteiger, J., & Hatchings, M. G.
(1985). The anesthetic activity and toxicity of halogenated ethyl methyl
ethers, a multivariate QSAR modelled by PLS. Molecular
Informatics, 4(1), 1-11.
[19] Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary
journal, 6(1), 1-55.
[20] Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., & Veermans, M. (2008). Understanding the
dynamics of motivation in socially shared learning. International Journal
of Educational Research, 47(2), 122-135.
[21] Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between
multitasking and academic performance. Computers & Education, 59(2),
505-514.
[22] Kim, H. (2013). Exercise rehabilitation for smartphone addiction. Journal
of exercise rehabilitation, 9(6), 500.
[23] Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing
electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational technology
research and development, 52(3), 47.
[24] Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
[25] Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning.
[26] Kör, H., Erbay, H., Engin, M., & Dünder, E. (2017). An examination of
the correlation between scince and technology attitudes scales, frequency
of smartphone usege scale and lifelong learning scale scores using the
structural equation model. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(1).
[27] Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Traxler, J. (2007). Designing for mobile and
wireless learning. Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and
delivering e-learning, 180-192.
[28] Kwon, M., Kim, D. J., Cho, H., & Yang, S. (2013). The smartphone
addiction scale: development and validation of a short version for
adolescents. PloS one, 8(12), e83558.
[29] Kwon, M., Lee, J. Y., Won, W. Y., Park, J. W., Min, J. A., Hahn, C., ...
& Kim, D. J. (2013). Development and validation of a smartphone
addiction scale (SAS). PloS one, 8(2), e56936.
[30] Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., & Karpinski, A. C. (2014). The relationship
between cell phone use, academic performance, anxiety, and satisfaction
with life in college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 343-350.
[31] Lian, L., You, X., Huang, J., & Yang, R. (2016). Who overuses
Smartphones? Roles of virtues and parenting style in Smartphone
addiction among Chinese college students. Computers in Human
Behavior, 65, 92-99.
[32] Lian, L., You, X., Huang, J., & Yang, R. (2016). Who overuses
Smartphones? Roles of virtues and parenting style in Smartphone
addiction among Chinese college students. Computers in Human
Behavior, 65, 92-99.
[33] Lin, Y. H., Lin, Y. C., Lee, Y. H., Lin, P. H., Lin, S. H., Chang, L. R., ...
& Kuo, T. B. (2015). Time distortion associated with smartphone
addiction: Identifying smartphone addiction via a mobile application
(App). Journal of psychiatric research, 65, 139-145.
[34] Liu, Q., Peng, W., Zhang, F., Hu, R., Li, Y., & Yan, W. (2016). The
effectiveness of blended learning in health professions: systematic review
and meta-analysis. Journal of medical Internet research, 18(1).
[35] Loveless, A. (2011). Technology, pedagogy and education: reflections on
the accomplishment of what teachers know, do and believe in a digital
age. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(3), 301-316.
[36] McNeill, M., Ming Diao, M., & Gosper, M. (2011). Student uses of
technology in learning: two lenses. Interactive Technology and Smart
Education, 8(1), 5-17.
[37] Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self‐directed learning: Pillars of
adult learning theory. New directions for adult and continuing
education, 2001(89), 3-14.
[38] Mok, J. Y., Choi, S. W., Kim, D. J., Choi, J. S., Lee, J., Ahn, H., ... &
Song, W. Y. (2014). Latent class analysis on internet and smartphone
addiction in college students. Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 10,
817.
[39] Patera, M., Draper, S., & Naef, M. (2008). Exploring magic cottage: A
virtual reality environment for stimulating children's imaginative
writing. Interactive Learning Environments, 16(3), 245-263.
[40] Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D., & McCormick, A. C. (2011). An investigation of
the contingent relationships between learning community participation
and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 52(3), 300-322.
[41] Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed
learning, student engagement and academic performance: Examining the
interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 604-612.
[42] Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed
learning, student engagement and academic performance: Examining the
interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 604-612.
[43] Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2015). “SmartPLS 3.”
Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH, http://www.smartpls.com (accessed 5
October 2017).
[44] Rosen, L. D., Whaling, K., Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A., & Rokkum, J.
(2013). The media and technology usage and attitudes scale: An empirical
investigation. Computers in human behavior, 29(6), 2501-2511.
[45] Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). Test manual for the Utrecht
Work Engagement Scale. Unpublished manuscript, Utrecht University,
the Netherlands. Retrieved from http://www.schaufeli.com
[46] Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The
measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-
national study. Educational and psychological measurement, 66(4), 701-
716.
[47] Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003).
Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and
descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of psychological research
online, 8(2), 23-74.
[48] Shin, D. H., Shin, Y. J., Choo, H., & Beom, K. (2011). Smartphones as
smart pedagogical tools: Implications for smartphones as u-learning
devices. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2207-2214.
[49] Shin, D. H., Shin, Y. J., Choo, H., & Beom, K. (2011). Smartphones as
smart pedagogical tools: Implications for smartphones as u-learning
devices. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2207-2214.
[50] Srinivas, Hari, 2014. Retrieved on July 15, 2017, from
http://www.gdrc.org/kmgmt/c-learn.
[51] Su, C. H., & Cheng, C. H. (2015). A mobile gamification learning system
for improving the learning motivation and achievements. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 31(3), 268-286.
View publication stats
[52] Urbach, N., & Ahlemann, F. (2010). Structural equation modeling in
information systems research using partial least squares. JITTA: Journal
of Information Technology Theory and Application, 11(2), 5.
[53] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User
acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS
quarterly, 425-478.
[54] Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and
use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance
and use of technology. MIS quarterly, 157-178.
[55] Walker, C. O., & Greene, B. A. (2009). The relations between student
motivational beliefs and cognitive engagement in high school. The
Journal of Educational Research, 102(6), 463-472.
[56] Wen, C., & Zhang, J. (2015). Design of a microlecture mobile learning
system based on smartphone and web platforms. IEEE Transactions on
Education, 58(3), 203-207.
[57] Wold, H. (1985). Partial least squares. Encyclopedia of statistical
sciences.
[58] Woodcock, Ben, Andrew Middleton, and Anne Nortcliffe. "Considering
the Smartphone Learner: an investigation into student interest in the use
of personal technology to enhance their learning." Student Engagement
and Experience Journal 1.1 (2012): 1-15.
[59] Wu, W. H., Wu, Y. C. J., Chen, C. Y., Kao, H. Y., Lin, C. H., & Huang,
S. H. (2012). Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-
analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 817-827.
[60] Yamamoto, N., & Wakahara, T. (2013). An interactive learning system
using smartphone for improving students learning motivation.
In Information Technology Convergence (pp. 305-310). Springer,
Dordrecht.
[61] Yang, H. J. (2004). Factors affecting student burnout and academic
achievement in multiple enrollment programs in Taiwan’s technical–
vocational colleges. International Journal of Educational
Development, 24(3), 283-301.
[62] Yang, Y. F. (2011). Engaging students in an online situated language
learning environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(2),
181-198.
[63] Yang, Y. F. (2016). Self-directed learning to develop autonomy in an
online ESP community. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(7), 1629-
1646.