CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 395Online and Blended LearningMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Digital support for student engagement in blended learning based on self-determination theory

Open access
Chiu, Thomas K.F.·2021·Computers in Human Behavior
DOI 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106909
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Student engagement in a blended learning environment is very different from that in a traditional classroom environment, and is fostered by satisfying three innate needs identified in self-determination theory (SDT): autonomy, relatedness, and competence. Related studies have emphasized teacher support to satisfy the three students’ need, but not digital support. The founders of SDT recently stated that SDT-based research should focus on problems associated with learning technologies. Accordingly, this study proposed digital support designs to fulfill the three abovementioned needs, examined their effectiveness, and investigated how the developed forms of digital support and teacher support contributed to student engagement. The study adopted a sequential explanatory mixed methods research design and involved 426 Grade 11 students. The findings were as follows. (i) Compared with teacher support, digital support better engaged students in blended learning by satisfying their needs. (ii) Teacher support was closely related to student engagement. (iii) The relationship between digital support and student engagement varied. Possible explanations are the benefits of offering multiple modalities, considering learning expertise, and applying emotional designs. The findings contribute to SDT by adding a new perspective, namely digital support, and thereby proposing a new framework for needs support in blended learning.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106909

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 62 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 394

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Chiu, T. K. F.
Affiliations
Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Chiu, Thomas K.F.
ORCID
Chiu, Thomas K.F.
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-11
Volume
124
Pages
106909
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.chb.2021.106909
OpenAlex
W3171536220
Cited by
395
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 90 · 2025: 101 · 2024: 87 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 9
FWCI
89.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
student engagement, blended learning, self-determination theory, digital support, teacher support, autonomy, relatedness, competence, emotional design, educational technology, high school students

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review