Cited by 102Online and Blended LearningMobile Learning in EducationDigital Communication and Language

Effects of using mobile instant messaging on student behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement: a quasi-experimental study

Open access
Tang, Ying, Hew, Khe Foon·2022·International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education

Abstract

Mobile instant messaging (MIM) has become the most popular means for young people to communicate. MIM apps typically come with a myriad of features that educators may leverage to increase student learning. However, it remains poorly understood to what extent and in what aspect MIM can facilitate student engagement. We address the gap by comparing the effects of using MIM and asynchronous online discussion (AOD) on student online engagement, using a quasi-experimental study involving a historical cohort control group. Understanding which communication mode can better promote student online engagement is particularly important during the current widespread use of online learning. Specifically, we examined engagement from the behavioral, emotional, and cognitive dimensions. The results showed that the MIM group was more behaviorally engaged in discussion activities, producing more messages, more words, and higher rates of participation, task completion, and interaction. Emotionally, no statistically significant difference was found in students’ affective evaluation of course interaction and satisfaction between the two groups. However, MIM appeared to help students with improved intimacy and interpersonal relationships. Cognitively, the MIM group was more engaged than the AOD group. In particular, MIM seemed to facilitate interactive idea exchange and thus contributing to more “creating” activities. We conclude by providing suggestions for future instructional practice and research directions.

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 · 10.1186/s41239-021-00306-6

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Sending notifications via mobile push messages increased cognitive engagement.

    “Similarly, Tang and Hew (2022) showed that sending notifications via mobile push messages increased behavioral and cognitive engagement, while no significant difference was observed in the affective evaluation.”

    From You have a notification: the role of push notifications in shaping students’ engagement, self-regulation and academic procrastination (2025) · cites this paper as Tang and Hew (2022)

    The Results—Cognitive engagement section (page not provided) reports more cognitively engaging communication in the mobile instant messaging group than in the online-discussion group. But it does not establish that sending push notifications caused the increase; the Results—Emotional engagement section says notifications prompted participation, while some students found them distracting. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Sending notifications via mobile push messages produced no significant difference in affective evaluation.

    “Similarly, Tang and Hew (2022) showed that sending notifications via mobile push messages increased behavioral and cognitive engagement, while no significant difference was observed in the affective evaluation.”

    From You have a notification: the role of push notifications in shaping students’ engagement, self-regulation and academic procrastination (2025) · cites this paper as Tang and Hew (2022)

    The Results (Emotional engagement; page not provided) report no significant difference between the mobile instant messaging and online discussion groups on surveyed attitudes toward interaction and course satisfaction. The Discussion likewise reports no significant difference in emotional engagement. The study compared communication methods, however; it did not isolate the effect of sending push notifications on affective evaluation. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The behavior indicators used in the current study are comparable to those in Tang and Hew (2022).

    “On the other hand, since participation in online learning refers to students' engagement with the learning platform across all its dimensions (Peng, 2017), the results of subcomponents in the study by Tang and Hew (2022), which calculated participation behaviors based on push notifications, were comparable to the behavior indicators used in the current study.”

    From You have a notification: the role of push notifications in shaping students’ engagement, self-regulation and academic procrastination (2025) · cites this paper as Tang and Hew (2022)

    The Method (Data collection and analysis) and Results (Behavioral engagement, Table 4; page not specified) show that Tang and Hew measured participation using online interaction records, including participant counts, posts, task completion, and interaction. These are behavioral indicators, but the paper did not calculate participation behaviors from push notifications; it discusses notifications as prompting engagement. Our copy also cannot establish whether those indicators are comparable to the citing study’s indicators. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Sending notifications via mobile push messages increased behavioral engagement.

    “Similarly, Tang and Hew (2022) showed that sending notifications via mobile push messages increased behavioral and cognitive engagement, while no significant difference was observed in the affective evaluation.”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bailey, K. D. (2002). The effects of learning strategies on student interaction and student satisfaction [doctoral dissertation]. The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/5922
  2. Tinto V Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of college attrition 1987 University of Chicago Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tang, Y., & Hew, K. F.
Affiliations
Southwest University (CN)
Corresponding author
Tang, Ying
Venue
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education
Published
2022-01-11
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
3-3
ISSN
2365-9440 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4206298561
Cited by
102
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 9
FWCI
48.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Mobile Learning in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Digital Communication and Language
Keywords
mobile instant messaging, asynchronous online discussion, student engagement, behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, cognitive engagement, online learning, student satisfaction, interpersonal relationships, idea sharing, university 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