How teacher presence affects student engagement with a generative artificial intelligence chatbot in learning designed with first principles of instruction

“Moreover, student engagement is context dependent (Fredricks et al., 2004) and it cannot be isolated from the context (Hiver et al., 2024).”

“The term “teacher presence,” emerging from the intersection of teaching presence and social presence from the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Anderson et al., 2001; Garrison et al., 1999), appears less frequently than teaching presence and social presence (Thomas & Thorpe, 2019).”

“Student engagement is considered to be positively related with student persistence, satisfaction, and learning performance (Kuh, 2001), and thus is always a key topic in student learning (Kahu, 2013).”

“After reviewing different instructional design theories, Merrill (2002) proposed First Principles of Instruction (FPI) as an attempt to identify principles common in various theories.”

“The term “teacher presence,” emerging from the intersection of teaching presence and social presence from the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Anderson et al., 2001; Garrison et al., 1999), appears less frequently than teaching presence and social presence (Thomas & Thorpe, 2019).”

“Student engagement is considered to be positively related with student persistence, satisfaction, and learning performance (Kuh, 2001), and thus is always a key topic in student learning (Kahu, 2013).”

“Student engagement is a multidimensional construct and is categorized in four dimensions: behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and agentic engagement (Fredricks, 2011; Reeve, 2013).”

“Emotional engagement refers to the feelings students have toward teachers, peers, learning activities, and school experience, as well as their sense of belonging (Chiu, 2021; Sinatra et al., 2015).”

“Cognitive engagement refers to the degree of mental effort students put into learning tasks in terms of thinking management and using sophisticated rather than superficial learning strategies (Greene et al., 2004; Senko & Miles, 2008).”

“…FPI is applicable to constructing a technology-supported language learning environment and promoting learners’ language learning, few researchers have applied FPI when exploring the application of instructional design principles in language learning in an AI or GenAI context (Weng & Chiu, 2023).”

“Moreover, teacher presence was considerably influential (Prestridge et al., 2024), as teachers were able to create supportive learning environments (Chiu, 2021, 2022) and take significant measures (Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020) to promote student engagement.”

“…included teacher presence in their research and sought to suggest dis-1100 tinct teacher roles in promoting language learning in GenAI environments (Jeon & Lee, 2023), far too little attention was paid to this topic, and empirical research on how teachers use GenAI in their teaching was urgently…”

“Moreover, student engagement is context dependent (Fredricks et al., 2004) and it cannot be isolated from the context (Hiver et al., 2024).”

“Studies on student engagement in language education have been conducted in traditional classrooms (Derakhshan et al., 2024; Zhou & Hiver, 2022) and technology-supported learning contexts (Annamalai et al., 2023; Zhang & Hyland, 2018) for both K–12 and higher education.”

“GenAI tools, such as chatbots and text-to-images, have great capability for generating new content (e.g., images, texts, videos, etc.) and communicating with the user in human-like approaches (Chiu, 2024a; Peres et al., 2023).”

“Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has impacted education from both teacher and student perspectives (Chiu, 2024a), including language teaching and learning (Boudouaia et al., 2024; Carlson et al., 2023).”

“The English teacher presented and demonstrated TK, PK, and CK to organize, guide, and facilitate student learning in this GenAI learning context, contributing to TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Rosenberg & Koehler, 2015).”

“Moreover, teacher presence was considerably influential (Prestridge et al., 2024), as teachers were able to create supportive learning environments (Chiu, 2021, 2022) and take significant measures (Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020) to promote student engagement.”

“In language education, behavioral engagement encompasses students acquiring new vocabulary and expressions (Hwang et al., 2024), proactively practicing spoken conversations (Jeon, 2024), and dedicating sufficient time to reading and writing (Bråten et al., 2022; Latini et al., 2019).”

“Moreover, teacher presence was considerably influential (Prestridge et al., 2024), as teachers were able to create supportive learning environments (Chiu, 2021, 2022) and take significant measures (Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020) to promote student engagement.”

“There were some overlaps with teacher presence (roles) in a non-GenAI context, such as knowledge presenter, course organizer, and feedback provider (Ji et al., 2023), confirming that teacher presence (roles) in traditional learning could be supported and enhanced in a GenAI context and indicating…”

“Teachers could present new knowledge (Guo et al., 2024), provide informative feedback (Zheng & Yu, 2018), and encourage students to evaluate their use of target knowledge (Tseng, 2018) to facilitate student engagement cognitively.”

“Therefore, GenAI chatbots may be able to enhance student behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement in language learning (Wang & Xue, 2024).”

“Student engagement is a multidimensional construct and is categorized in four dimensions: behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and agentic engagement (Fredricks, 2011; Reeve, 2013).”

“Student engagement is impacted by many contextual factors, such as instruction design and teacher presence (McKellar et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2024).”

“Students’ learning progress and outcomes can be predicted by their engagement (Chiu, 2021, 2022; Liu et al., 2022; 2024).”

“Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has impacted education from both teacher and student perspectives (Chiu, 2024a), including language teaching and learning (Boudouaia et al., 2024; Carlson et al., 2023).”

“…education, students emotionally engaged tended to have a positive attitude and emotion to their language learning activities (Bailey et al., 2021; Ebadi & Amini, 2024), show willingness to read English texts (Lee et al., 2023), and feel cared for by teachers and classmates in the language…”

“Meanwhile, this autonomy-supportive motivating style in the classroom instruction was able to promote agentic engagement (Chiu, 2021; Reeve, 2013; Reeve & Shin, 2020).”

“Well-designed technology-supported learning environments effectively enhance student engagement (Luan et al., 2023; Su et al., 2024; Teng & Wang, 2021).”

“Cognitive engagement refers to the degree of mental effort students put into learning tasks in terms of thinking management and using sophisticated rather than superficial learning strategies (Greene et al., 2004; Senko & Miles, 2008).”

“They also create authentic learning experiences (Tai & Chen, 2024) and offer drilling practice opportunities (Bašić et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023).”

“Some researchers attempted to clarify how GenAI chatbots impacted student engagement in language education, suggesting GenAI chatbots were capable of improving student engagement behaviorally, emotionally, and cognitively (Wang & Wang, 2024; Wang & Xue, 2024).”

“…engaged tended to have a positive attitude and emotion to their language learning activities (Bailey et al., 2021; Ebadi & Amini, 2024), show willingness to read English texts (Lee et al., 2023), and feel cared for by teachers and classmates in the language learning process (Weng & Chiu, 2023).”

“Numerous empirical studies have demonstrated that students’ language acquisition was improved with FPI (Chong & Lee, 2012; Lo et al., 2018).”

“Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has impacted education from both teacher and student perspectives (Chiu, 2024a), including language teaching and learning (Boudouaia et al., 2024; Carlson et al., 2023).”

“Third, this study identified some features of teacher presence (roles) in GenAI chatbot language learning (RQ2), which was rarely studied in the previous studies (Li et al., 2024).”

“…engaged tended to have a positive attitude and emotion to their language learning activities (Bailey et al., 2021; Ebadi & Amini, 2024), show willingness to read English texts (Lee et al., 2023), and feel cared for by teachers and classmates in the language learning process (Weng & Chiu, 2023).”

“Teachers could talk to students in a friendly and positive way (Chiu, 2024a), provide individual help (Tai & Chen, 2024), and develop supportive learning environments (Chiu, 2021; Dizon, 2020) to improve student emotional engagement.”

“However, the meanings differ, as teacher presence is more concerned with observable behaviors in the “while teaching” process (Richardson et al., 2016), and teaching presence, being related to design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes, begins from the design process…”

“GenAI chatbots allow students to connect in human-like ways and encourage them to interact with them (Jeon et al., 2024).”

“In language learning, teacher presence was associated with student engagement in the classroom (Sadoughi & Hejazi, 2023), as well as in technology-supported learning contexts (e.g., blended learning, online learning, etc.) (Xu et al., 2020; Zhang & Hyland, 2018).”

“Digital technology is effective in fostering a robust learning environment (Ding & Hong, 2024; Zhi et al., 2024).”

“Studies on student engagement in language education have been conducted in traditional classrooms (Derakhshan et al., 2024; Zhou & Hiver, 2022) and technology-supported learning contexts (Annamalai et al., 2023; Zhang & Hyland, 2018) for both K–12 and higher education.”

“Students’ learning progress and outcomes can be predicted by their engagement (Chiu, 2021, 2022; Liu et al., 2022; 2024).”

“The term “teacher presence,” emerging from the intersection of teaching presence and social presence from the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Anderson et al., 2001; Garrison et al., 1999), appears less frequently than teaching presence and social presence (Thomas & Thorpe, 2019).”

“Well-designed technology-supported learning environments effectively enhance student engagement (Luan et al., 2023; Su et al., 2024; Teng & Wang, 2021).”

“Teachers could present new knowledge (Guo et al., 2024), provide informative feedback (Zheng & Yu, 2018), and encourage students to evaluate their use of target knowledge (Tseng, 2018) to facilitate student engagement cognitively.”

“In language education, behavioral engagement encompasses students acquiring new vocabulary and expressions (Hwang et al., 2024), proactively practicing spoken conversations (Jeon, 2024), and dedicating sufficient time to reading and writing (Bråten et al., 2022; Latini et al., 2019).”

“In language education, students emotionally engaged tended to have a positive attitude and emotion to their language learning activities (Bailey et al., 2021; Ebadi & Amini, 2024), show willingness to read English texts (Lee et al., 2023), and feel cared for by teachers and classmates in the…”

“Studies on student engagement in language education have been conducted in traditional classrooms (Derakhshan et al., 2024; Zhou & Hiver, 2022) and technology-supported learning contexts (Annamalai et al., 2023; Zhang & Hyland, 2018) for both K–12 and higher education.”

“The CoI theoretical framework was proposed from a computer-mediated context (Garrison et al., 1999) and was predominantly investigated in online learning, blended learning, or flipped learning (Rehn et al., 2016; Rubio et al., 2018; Thomas & Thorpe, 2019).”

“In language education, agentic engagement refers to student inclinations to interact with their instructors or teachers in their language learning process (Almusharraf & Bailey, 2021), as well as to self-regulate their own learning (Wang & Lee, 2021).”

“In language education, behavioral engagement encompasses students acquiring new vocabulary and expressions (Hwang et al., 2024), proactively practicing spoken conversations (Jeon, 2024), and dedicating sufficient time to reading and writing (Bråten et al., 2022; Latini et al., 2019).”

“They also create authentic learning experiences (Tai & Chen, 2024) and offer drilling practice opportunities (Bašić et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023).”

“In language education, agentic engagement refers to student inclinations to interact with their instructors or teachers in their language learning process (Almusharraf & Bailey, 2021), as well as to self-regulate their own learning (Wang & Lee, 2021).”

“…findings could be also due to language proficiency, as researchers found students of different language proficiency engaged differently (Li et al., 2024), or to personality traits, which researchers revealed had an impact on student engagement (Quigley et al., 2022), or to educational level.”

“They also create authentic learning experiences (Tai & Chen, 2024) and offer drilling practice opportunities (Bašić et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023).”

“Student engagement is impacted by many contextual factors, such as instruction design and teacher presence (McKellar et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2024).”

“Teacher presence is important in the language classroom (Rubio et al., 2018); however, its effect on student engagement with GenAI remains unclear.”

“In language education, behavioral engagement encompasses students acquiring new vocabulary and expressions (Hwang et al., 2024), proactively practicing spoken conversations (Jeon, 2024), and dedicating sufficient time to reading and writing (Bråten et al., 2022; Latini et al., 2019).”

“…presence could not significantly improve students engagement behaviorally and cognitively when students learn language with GenAI chatbots, which seemed inconsistent with findings of previous studies conducted in a non-GenAI language learning context (Cheng et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2024).”

“Students valued actions and behaviors of teachers, like selecting learning resources (Moghari & Marandi, 2017), presenting knowledge (Owodally, 2015), designing tasks (Chow et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022), providing feedback (Li et al., 2024), and evaluating performance (Li et al., 2022).”

“Teachers could present new knowledge (Guo et al., 2024), provide informative feedback (Zheng & Yu, 2018), and encourage students to evaluate their use of target knowledge (Tseng, 2018) to facilitate student engagement cognitively.”

“Digital technology is effective in fostering a robust learning environment (Ding & Hong, 2024; Zhi et al., 2024).”

“Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has impacted education from both teacher and student perspectives (Chiu, 2024a), including language teaching and learning (Boudouaia et al., 2024; Carlson et al., 2023).”

“Well-designed technology-supported learning environments effectively enhance student engagement (Luan et al., 2023; Su et al., 2024; Teng & Wang, 2021).”

“Numerous empirical studies have demonstrated that students’ language acquisition was improved with FPI (Chong & Lee, 2012; Lo et al., 2018).”

“The First Principles of Instruction (FPI), a theory of instructional design, is an integrated framework (Merrill, 2002) and serves as an effective principle essential for language learning (Frick et al., 2022; Lo et al., 2018; Weng & Chiu, 2023).”

“It is affected by contextual factors such as learning environments, teacher presences, digital tools, and personality traits (Angelovska et al., 2021; Cheng et al., 2023; Chiu, 2022).”

“Students valued actions and behaviors of teachers, like selecting learning resources (Moghari & Marandi, 2017), presenting knowledge (Owodally, 2015), designing tasks (Chow et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022), providing feedback (Li et al., 2024), and evaluating performance (Li et al., 2022).”

“In language learning, students engaged cognitively could gain different language knowledge (Lo, 2023), develop critical thinking skills (Xie, 2024), and evaluate their ability (Giessler, 2024).”

“In language learning, students engaged cognitively could gain different language knowledge (Lo, 2023), develop critical thinking skills (Xie, 2024), and evaluate their ability (Giessler, 2024).”

“Student engagement is impacted by many contextual factors, such as instruction design and teacher presence (McKellar et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2024).”

“Students valued actions and behaviors of teachers, like selecting learning resources (Moghari & Marandi, 2017), presenting knowledge (Owodally, 2015), designing tasks (Chow et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022), providing feedback (Li et al., 2024), and evaluating performance (Li et al., 2022).”

“Moreover, teacher presence was considerably influential (Prestridge et al., 2024), as teachers were able to create supportive learning environments (Chiu, 2021, 2022) and take significant measures (Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020) to promote student engagement.”

“Students valued actions and behaviors of teachers, like selecting learning resources (Moghari & Marandi, 2017), presenting knowledge (Owodally, 2015), designing tasks (Chow et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022), providing feedback (Li et al., 2024), and evaluating performance (Li et al., 2022).”

“In language learning, students engaged cognitively could gain different language knowledge (Lo, 2023), develop critical thinking skills (Xie, 2024), and evaluate their ability (Giessler, 2024).”

“These fi ndings align with Li et al. (2025), who demonstrated that teacher presence contributed to students ’ emotional and agentic engagement in GenAI-based learning environments.”

“…of contextual need support (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Vansteenkiste et al., 2020), CLASS-based evidence on interaction quality compensating for structural disadvantage (Hamre et al., 2013; Pianta & Hofkens, 2023), and evidence that teacher presence moderates GenAI learning outcomes (Li et al., 2025).”

“Meanwhile, teacher presence remains essential for sustaining meaningful interaction with AI tools (Li et al., 2025).”