Engagement
Technology integration quality and engagement
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Among Swiss upper-secondary students, validated TIQS dimensions—especially support for learning and classroom management—were positively related to behavioral engagement, while cognitive activation related to digital competencies.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Cross-sectional — TIQS validation and SEM linking technology-integration quality to engagement
- N
- N=2281 · 2,281 second-year Swiss upper-secondary students
- Population
- Swiss upper-secondary students rating classroom technology integration
- Outcome
- Behavioral engagement and digital competencies related to TIQS quality dimensions
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
Four factors fit well. Support for learning and classroom management positively predicted behavioral engagement; cognitive activation positively predicted digital competencies; technology-use frequency had smaller positive links. Individualized teaching unexpectedly related negatively to engagement in the reported models.
Methodology
Researchers developed the Technology Integration Quality Scale (TIQS), validated a four-factor structure with EFA/CFA in 2,281 second-year upper-secondary students, then used cluster-robust SEM to relate quality dimensions and technology-use frequency to behavioral engagement and self-assessed digital competencies.
Limitations
Cross-sectional student perceptions cannot prove that changing integration quality causes engagement gains, and unexpected negative paths need cautious interpretation.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Quality of technology integration — especially support for learning and classroom management — is positively associated with students’ behavioral engagement, more than raw technology-use frequency alone.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
The Technology Integration Quality Scale was validated with EFA/CFA in 2,281 second-year upper-secondary students; four EFA factors accounted for 57.8% of variance. Cluster-robust SEM then found that support for learning and classroom management positively predicted behavioural engagement, cognitive activation predicted digital competencies, use-frequency links were smaller, and individualised teaching related negatively to engagement in the reported models. Cross-sectional perceptions cannot prove that changing integration quality would raise engagement.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Measurement models and change scores are different jobs. TIQS uses EFA/CFA then SEM paths, including an unexpected negative individualised-teaching path. The online-quality paper uses EFA to rank importance, not to predict engagement. The teacher-education paper uses SEM path coefficients among self-beliefs. The faculty paper reports pre/post attitude change for 695 trainees without a control. One software family (factors, SEM, scales) is not one empirical result.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Theoretically positive quality dimensions do not all point the same way. TIQS finds support and classroom management positively linked to behavioural engagement, but individualised teaching negative in the reported model — a sign the authors flag as fragile. The hierarchy paper’s teaching-presence/interactive factors are importance ratings, not the same latent as TIQS’s integration-quality factors. Do not treat them as replications of one 'quality raises engagement' law.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
A new Technology Integration Quality Scale (four factors, EFA/CFA in 2,281 upper-secondary students) was then placed in cluster-robust SEM: support for learning and classroom management positively predicted behavioural engagement; cognitive activation predicted digital competencies; use-frequency links were smaller; individualised teaching related negatively to engagement in the reported model. Cross-sectional perceptions cannot prove that changing those practices would raise engagement.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
What gets to be a mediator is a modelling choice, not a discovery of a unique true path. The TEL course paper puts LMS engagement and quizzes between attendance and grades; the TIQS paper puts quality dimensions and frequency on engagement and competencies, including an unexpected negative path; the teacher-education paper chains evaluation literacy → search literacy → ICT self-efficacy. Different diagrams on different variables are not replications of one mediation law.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
Measurement models and change scores are different jobs. TIQS uses EFA/CFA then SEM paths, including an unexpected negative individualised-teaching path. The online-quality paper uses EFA to rank importance, not to predict engagement. The teacher-education paper uses SEM path coefficients among self-beliefs. The faculty paper reports pre/post attitude change for 695 trainees without a control. One software family (factors, SEM, scales) is not one empirical result.
Theoretically positive quality dimensions do not all point the same way. TIQS finds support and classroom management positively linked to behavioural engagement, but individualised teaching negative in the reported model — a sign the authors flag as fragile. The hierarchy paper’s teaching-presence/interactive factors are importance ratings, not the same latent as TIQS’s integration-quality factors. Do not treat them as replications of one 'quality raises engagement' law.
What gets to be a mediator is a modelling choice, not a discovery of a unique true path. The TEL course paper puts LMS engagement and quizzes between attendance and grades; the TIQS paper puts quality dimensions and frequency on engagement and competencies, including an unexpected negative path; the teacher-education paper chains evaluation literacy → search literacy → ICT self-efficacy. Different diagrams on different variables are not replications of one mediation law.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.