The study investigates the role of the extent to use and value consideration of IT facilities on student performance and analyzes the mediating role of student engagement between IT facilities and student performance. Data collected from university students has been analyzed using the structural equation model. The results show that the extent to use of IT facilities has a significant positive impact on student performance, and student engagement plays a significant mediating role between IT facilities and student performance. This study will have significant implications for policymakers in deciding and designing appropriate technology for the education system of a country.
AdeosunO. (2010). Quality basic education development in Nigeria: Imperative for use of ICT. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 13(2), 193–211.
2.
AlvaradoS. A.TurlyR. N. (2007). College bound friends: A study of races and ethnic differences. University of Wisconsin, Department of Socialogy.
3.
AndersonJ. C.GerbingD. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3).
4.
AppletonJ. J.ChristensonS. L.KimD.ReschlyA. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
5.
ArtinoA. R. (2012). Emotions in online learning environments: Introduction to the special issue. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.04.001
6.
ArtinoA. R.StephensJ. M. (2009). Academic motivation and self-regulation: A comparative analysis of undergraduate and graduate students learning online. The Internet and Higher Education, 12, 146–151.
7.
AstinA. W.PanosR. J. (1969). The educational and vocational development of college students. American Council on Education.
8.
BalasubramanianK.Clarke-OkahW.DanielJ.FerreiraF.KanwarA.KwanA.LesperanceJ.MalletJ.UmarA.WestP. (2009, July). ICTs for higher education. Background paper from the Commonwealth of Learning UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education. UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education Paris, 5 to 8 July 2009. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001832/183207e.pd
9.
BanerjeeA.DhillonI.GhoshJ.MeruguS. (2004, July). An information theoretic analysis of maximum likelihood mixture estimation for exponential families. Proceedings of the Twenty-first International Conference on Machine Learning.
10.
BatesT. (2005). Technology, E-learning and distance education. Routledge Falmer.
11.
Ben YoussefA.DahmaniM. (2008). The impact of ICT on student performance in higher education: Direct effects, indirect effects and organisational change. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v5i1.321
12.
BerndtT. J.KeefeK. (1995). Friends' influence on adolescents' adjustment to school. Child Development, 66(5), 1312–1329.
13.
BrownD. J. (1990). Decentralization and school-based management. Psychology Press.
14.
BulgerC. A.MatthewsR. A.HoffmanM. E. (2007). Work and personal life boundary management: Boundary strength, work/personal life balance, and the segmentation-integration continuum. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(4).
15.
Carmona-HaltyM.SalanovaM.LlorensS.SchaufeliW. B. (2019). Linking positive emotions and academic performance: The mediated role of academic psychological capital and academic engagement. Current Psychology, 40(6), 2938–2947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00227-8
16.
ChauhanS.GuptaP.PalviaS.JaiswalM. (2021). Information technology transforming higher education: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 23(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2020.1846480
17.
ChouC.PengH.ChangC. Y. (2010). The technical framework of interactive functions for course-management systems: Students’ perceptions, uses, and evaluations. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1004–1017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.011
18.
CoatesD.HumphreysB. R.KaneJ.VachrisM. A. (2004). No significant distance” between face-to-face and online instruction: Evidence from principles of economics. Economics of Education Review, 23(6), 533–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2004.02.002
19.
DanielsL. M.StupniskyR. H.PekrunR.HaynesT. L.PerryR. P.NewallN. E. (2009). A longitudinal analysis of achievement goals: From affective antecedents to emotional effects and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4).
20.
D’ErricoF.PacielloM.CernigliaL. (2016). When emotions enhance students’ engagement in e-learning processes. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1144
21.
DonhamC.PohanC.MenkeE.KranzfelderP. (2022). Increasing student engagement through course attributes, community, and classroom technology: Lessons from the pandemic. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 23(1), e00268–21. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00268-21
22.
EnnettS. T.BaumanK. E. (1994). The contribution of influence and selection to adolescent peer group homogeneity: The case of adolescent cigarette smoking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 653–663. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.653
23.
FacklerS.MalmbergL.-E. (2016). Teachers’ self-efficacy in 14 OECD countries: Teacher, student group, school and leadership effects. Teaching and Teacher Education, 56, 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.002
24.
FarhanM.AslamM.JabbarS.KhalidS. (2016). Multimedia based qualitative assessment methodology in eLearning: Student teacher engagement analysis. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 77(4), 4909–4923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-4212-6
25.
FeidakisM.DaradoumisT.CaballéS.ConesaJ. (2014). Embedding emotion awareness into e-learning environments. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 9(7), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v9i7.3727
26.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
27.
FredricksJ. A.BlumenfeldP. C.ParisA. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
28.
FuJ. (2013). ICT in education: A critical literature review and its implication. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 9(1), 112–125. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/111900/
29.
FuchsT.WoessmannL. (2004) Computers and student learning: bivariate and multivariate evidence on the availability and use of computers at home and at school. CESifo Working Paper, 1321.
30.
García-MartínezI.LandaJ. M. A.LeónS. P. (2021). The mediating role of engagement on the achievement and quality of life of university students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(12), 6586. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126586
31.
GellinA. (2003). The effect of undergraduate student involvement on critical thinking: A meta-analysis of the literature, 1991–2000. Journal of College Student Development, 44(6), 746–762. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2003.0066
32.
GiavrimisP.PapanisE.PapanisE. M. (2011). Information and communication technologies and development of Learners’ critical thinking: Primary school teachers’ attitudes. International Education Studies, 4(3), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v4n3p150
33.
GoldsteinP. J.KatzR. N. (2005). Academic analytics: The uses of management information and technology in higher education.
34.
HairJ. F.RingleC. M.SarstedtM. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
35.
HairJ. F.RisherJ. J.SarstedtM.RingleC. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
36.
HandelsmanM. M.BriggsW. L.SullivanN.TowlerA. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 184–192. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192
37.
HenselerJ.DijkstraT. K.SarstedtM.RingleC. M.DiamantopoulosA.StraubD. W.KetchenD. J.JrHairJ. F.HultG. T. M.CalantoneR. J. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114526928
38.
HenselerJ.RingleC. M.SinkovicsR. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New challenges to international marketing (Vol. 20, pp. 277–319). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
39.
HungM. L.ChouC.ChenC. H.OwnZ. Y. (2010). Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computers and Education, 55(3), 1080–1090.
40.
HussainS.AliR.ZamanA.GhaffarA.AamirS. M.MinazM. (2013). The impact of peer groups on the academic achievements of secondary school students. Journal of American Science, 9(11), 13–16. http://www.jofamericanscience.org
41.
IslamM. S.FoujiM. H. (2010). The impact of ICT on students’ performance: A case study of ASA University Bangladesh. ASA University Review, 4(2), 101–106.
42.
JenningsP. A.GreenbergM. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693
43.
JessaniN. S.SiddiqiS. M.BabcockC.Davey-RothwellM.HoS.HoltgraveD. R. (2018). Factors affecting engagement between academic faculty and decision-makers: Learnings and priorities for a school of public health. Health Research Policy and Systems, 16(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0342-9
KandelD. B. (1978). Similarity in real-life adolescent friendship pairs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(3).
46.
KangC. (2006). Classroom peer effects and academic achievement: Quasi-randomization evidence from South Korea. Journal of Urban Economics,61(3), 458–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2006.07.006
47.
KhanM. S.KhanI.u-DinS.IsmailH. M.KhattakR.JanR. (2015). The impacts of ICT on the students’ performance: A review of access to information. Research on Humanities and Social Science, 5(1), 85–94.
48.
KlassenR. M.YerdelenS.DurksenT. L. (2013). Measuring teacher engagement: Development of the engaged teachers scale (ETS). Frontline Learning Research, 1(2), 33–52.
49.
KlineR. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
50.
KocM. (2005). Implications of learning theories for effective technology integration and preservice teacher training: A critical literature review. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 2(1), 2–18. https://www.tused.org/index.php/tused/article/view/51
51.
KockN. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration (IJEC), 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101
52.
KuhG. D. (2001). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.
53.
KuhG. D.KinzieJ.BuckleyJ.BridgesB. K.HayekJ. C. (2006, July). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. Commission Report for the National Symposium on Postsecondary Student Success: Spearheading a Dialogue on Student Success. Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.
54.
KuhG. D.SchuhJ. H.WhittE. J., & Associates. (1991). Involving colleges: Encouraging student learning and personal development through out-of-class experiences. Jossey-Bass.
55.
LuZ.HouL.HuangX. (2010). A research on a student-centred teaching model in an ICT-based English audio-video speaking class. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 6(3), 101–123. Open Campus, The University of the West Indies, West Indies. Retrieved December 8, 2022 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/42381/
56.
MarchandG. C.GutierrezA. P. (2012). The role of emotion in the learning process: Comparisons between online and face-to-face learning settings. The Internet and Higher Education, 15, 150–160.
57.
McmahonG. (2009). Critical thinking and ICT integration in a western Australian secondary school. Educational Technology and Society, 12(4), 269–281. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.12.4.269
58.
MemonM. A.RamayahT.CheahJ. H.TingH.ChuahF.ChamT. H. (2021). PLS-SEM statistical programs: A review. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 5(1), 1–14.
NkomoL. M.DanielB. K.ButsonR. J. (2021). Synthesis of student engagement with digital technologies: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00238-7
61.
PaceC. R. (1980). Measuring the quality of student effort. Current Issues in Higher Education, 2(1), 10–16.
62.
PaceC. R. (1984). Measuring the quality of college student experiences. An account of the development and use of the college student experiences questionnaire. Higher Education Research Institute.
63.
PascarellaE. T.WhittE. J.NoraA.EdisonM.HagedornL. S.TerenziniP. T. (1996). What have we learned from the first year of the national study of student learning?Journal of College Student Development, 37, 182–192.
64.
PekrunR. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
65.
PikeG. R.KillianT. S. (2001). Reported gains in student learning: Do academic disciplines make a difference?Research in Higher Education, 42, 429–454. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011054825704
66.
PikeG. R.KuhG. D. (2005). A typology of student engagement for American colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education, 46, 185–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004-1599-0
67.
PikeG. R.KuhG. D.GonyeaR. M. (2003). The relationship between institutional mission and students’ involvement and educational outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 44, 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022055829783
68.
PikeG. R.SmartJ. C.EthingtonC. A. (2011). The mediating effects of student engagement on the relationships between academic disciplines and learning outcomes: An extension of Holland’s theory. Research in Higher Education, 53(5), 550–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9239-y
ReisingerY.MavondoF. (2007). Structural equation modeling: Critical issues and new developments. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 21(4), 41–71.
71.
RosárioP.NúñezJ. C.FerrandoP. J.PaivaM. O.LourençoA.CerezoR.ValleA. (2013). The relationship between approaches to teaching and approaches to studying: A two-level structural equation model for biology achievement in high school. Metacognition and Learning, 8(1), 47–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-9095-6
72.
RozanoM.RomeroJ. (2016). Skill acquisition in blended learning courses: Influence on student performance. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.18844/ijlt.v8i1.372
73.
RubinK. H.BukowskiW. M.ParkerJ. G.BowkerJ. C. (2008). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In Child and adolescent development: An advanced course (pp. 141–180).
74.
RuizJ. G.MintzerM. J.LeipzigR. M. (2006). The impact of e-learning in medical education. Academic Medicine, 81(3), 207–212.
75.
RyanA. M. (2000). Peer groups as a context for the socialization of adolescents’ motivation, engagement, and achievement in school. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3502_4
76.
SchaufeliW. B.SalanovaM.González-romáV.BakkerA. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015630930326
77.
SiddiqiA. (2018). Mediating role of students’ engagement to their classes: An experience from higher education in Pakistan. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 13(2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-04-2018-0017
78.
SiddiquahA.SalimZ. (2017). The ICT facilities, skills, usage, and the problems faced by the students of higher education. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(8), 4987–4994. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00977a
79.
SkinnerE. A.KindermannT. A.FurrerC. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children's behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(3), 493–525.
80.
SosinK.BlechaB. J.AgarwalR.BartlettR. L.DanielJ. I. (2004). Efficiency in the use of technology in economic education: Some preliminary results. American Economic Review, 94(2), 253–258. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828041301623
81.
SuhS.MichenerC. J. (2019). The preparation of linguistically responsive teachers through dialogic online discussion prompts. Teaching and Teacher Education, 84, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.04.015
82.
SunJ. C. Y.RuedaR. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191–204.
83.
SzymkowiakA.MelovićB.DabićM.JeganathanK.KundiG. S. (2021). Information technology and Gen Z: The role of teachers, the internet, and technology in the education of young people. Technology in Society, 65, 101565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101565
84.
TaherdoostH. (2016). Sampling methods in research methodology; How to choose a sampling technique for research. International Journal of Academic Research in Management.
85.
UNESCO (2014). Information and communication technology (ICT) in education in Asia: A comparative analysis of ICT integration and e-readiness in schools across Asia.
86.
UrbergK. A.DeğirmencioğluS. M.PilgrimC. (1997). Close friend and group influence on adolescent cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Developmental Psychology, 33(5).
87.
VovidesY.Sanchez-AlonsoS.MitropoulouV.NickmansG. (2007). The use of e-learning course management systems to support learning strategies and to improve self-regulated learning. Educational Research Review, 2(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.02.004
88.
WangJ.ZhangX.ZhangL. J. (2022). Effects of teacher engagement on students’ achievement in an online English as a foreign language classroom: The mediating role of autonomous motivation and positive emotions. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 950652. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.950652
89.
YangC.BearG. G.MayH. (2018). Multilevel associations between school-wide social–emotional learning approach and student engagement across elementary, middle, and high schools. School Psychology Review, 47(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0003.V47-1
ZhongY.LiS. (2020). The influence of online teachers’ teaching engagement on students’ learning performance: From the perspectives of teachers and students. Open Educ Res, 26, 99–110.
