Next Article in Journal
The New EU Remuneration Policy as Good but Not Desired Corporate Governance Mechanism and the Role of CSR Disclosing
Previous Article in Journal
Estimation of Daily Water Table Level with Bimonthly Measurements in Restored Ombrotrophic Peatland
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 10
10.3390/su13105475
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

An Analysis of the Influencing Factors of Study Engagement and Its Enlightenment to Education: Role of Perceptions of School Climate and Self-Perception

by
Aibao Zhou
1,
Xiangli Guan
1,2,*,
Md Zahir Ahmed
1,
Oli Ahmed
3,
Mary C. Jobe
4 and
Fatema Akhter Hiramoni
5
1
School of Psychology, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730070, China
2
School of Teacher Education, Yuxi Normal University, Yuxi 653100, China
3
Department of Psychology, University of Chittagong, Chattogram 4331, Bangladesh
4
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA
5
Department of Economics, Sheikh Hasina University, Netrokona, Bangladesh
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(10), 5475; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105475
Submission received: 17 April 2021 / Revised: 11 May 2021 / Accepted: 12 May 2021 / Published: 13 May 2021
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Predominantly, a school provides pedagogical support to its students, though perceptions about the school’s internal environment can incessantly influence a student’s aggregated learning experience. The present study aims to investigate the impact of the campus environment on students’ study engagement and the roles of self-concept clarity and intentional self-regulation on this association. A hypothetical model about the relationship between campus perception, self-concept clarity, intentional self-regulation, and study engagement was tested. A total of 1597 students from Gansu Province, China, selected through a convenience sampling technique, were surveyed utilizing self-rated scales. Data were collected utilizing the Study Engagement Scale, Perceptions of School Climate Scale, Intentional Self-Regulation Scale and Self-Concept Clarity Scale. Results showed lower to moderate positive correlations between study variables. Students’ campus environment perceptions positively predicted adolescents’ study engagement. This association was also mediated by self-concept clarity and intentional self-regulation. All of these factors explained 41.26% variability of the study engagement. These findings show how the learning environment can impact students. Specifically, these results help demonstrate that self-concept clarity and intentional self-regulation have academic importance to optimize students’ study engagement that in turn promotes quality learning.

1. Introduction

Study engagement can predict adolescents’ academic achievement in school and predict their social adaptation and professional development [1]. Therefore, study engagement may be an important indicator of lifelong learning. Schaufeli et al. [2] have defined study engagement as a learning-related, stable, positive, full emotional, and cognitive mental state, including vigor, dedication, and absorption. This covers individuals staying energetic in learning activities, persevering in encounters with difficulties and obstacles, and appreciating the value and significance of learning. Apart from these attributions, study engagement implies the willingness to accept challenging learning tasks and experiencing happiness from being fully absorbed in learning. Students with higher learning ability consciously participate in learning activities, think deeply about problems, actively respond to challenges and setbacks, and are accompanied by positive emotional experiences [3]. However, learning has always not been regarded as an interesting activity to all students. Some students’ academic learning experience is rarely as enjoyable as exercising, watching TV, or socializing with friends. In addition, some students have learning problems such as lower learning efficiency, lower learning motivation, and weaker learning persistence [4]. Such students are more likely to have psychological problems such as depression and anxiety in later life [5,6].
What influences young people’s study engagement activities? What affects individual attitudes and behaviors is not necessarily objective reality but how the individual perceives their own experience [7]. Recently, more and more evidence shows that the perception of school climate is an important factor affecting study engagement [8,9]. According to the developmental ecology theory, the successful development of adolescence requires caring and trusting interpersonal relationships and an environment for autonomous self-expression, choice, and decision making [10].
China is a country dominated by collectivism. Chinese people pay attention to the value of interpersonal relationships and emphasize the interdependence between individuals and collectives and others. The relationships and self-concept of the Chinese people is unique [11]. They are more inclined to understand everything from social roles and relationships and pay more attention to relationships with others, as social relationships play an important role in growth and development [12]. Therefore, students’ perceptions of the school climate, especially support from teachers, classmates, peers, and self-reliance in the classroom, are regarded as the core aspects of their psychological development. This perspective is more in line with the reality of a collectivistic society like the interdependent Chinese culture.
Students’ higher perception of school climate does not always lead to higher study engagement behaviors. The perception of the campus environment affecting one’s study engagement behavior is related to their cognitive factors [13]. Then, does the perception of the campus environment still affect study engagement through individual cognitive factors? As one of the important contents of the self-cognition system, self-concept clarity develops rapidly during adolescence [14]. This is affected by one’s relationship to the environment during the development [15], and it positively affects one’s focus and devotion behavior [16]. Internal consistency and stability over time for self-concept clarity depend on the degree to which the belief in the self is clearly and confidently defined [17]. This construct is mainly used to assess the degree to which one forms stable beliefs about oneself. In addition, the metacognitive adjustment in the self-cognition system has a positive impact on students’ psychological development and learning behavior.
Another impactful variable to consider is intentional self-regulation, which affects students’ academic performance as well as internalization and externalization of problem behaviors in the school environment—it can also affect students’ academic development [18]. Intentional self-regulation refers to a series of action processes that actively coordinates the relationship between the requirements, resources, and personal goals of the context to enhance self-functioning or optimize self-development. It mainly helps people to adjust the relationship between the individual and the environment and manage external and internal resources for better development through selection, optimization, and compensation of three target-related strategies [19].
The research on the influencing factors of learning input has attracted the attention of many scholars nowadays [20]. However, the internal mechanism of these influencing factors of learning input has not been investigated enough. It is rare that the impact of campus environment perceptions on study engagement from an internal self-cognitive perspective is explored. Thus, the present study aims to contribute more to this area and look to answer the question of whether the perception of the campus environment affects engagement input through self-concept clarity and intentional self-regulation. In this study, three hypotheses were tested:
Hypotheses 1.
Students’ perception of the school climate positively predicts study engagement.
Hypotheses 2.
Students’ perception of the school climate influences study engagement through self-concept clarity.
Hypotheses 3.
Positive parenting style affects study engagement through intentional self-regulation.
Hypotheses 4.
Students’ perception of the school climate also influences study engagement through the chain effect of intentional self-regulation and self-concept clarity.
Based on the theory of participation motivation [21], the hypothetical model of this study is presented in Figure 1. There are four study variables in the model (school climate perception, self-concept clarity, intentional self-regulation, and study engagement). Perceptions of school climate include teacher support, student-student support, and opportunities for autonomy in the classroom, and intentional self-regulation includes target selection, target optimization, and target compensation. Stability and consistency of self-descriptions are two components of self-concept clarity. Study engagement includes vigor, dedication, absorption, and focus. The school climate provides students with opportunities for interpersonal relationships and learning autonomy to meet their basic psychological needs (interpersonal relationships that provide warmth and support through the relationship between teachers, students, and classmates and opportunities for autonomy through autonomous participation in activities) and the needs of the students’ self-recognition system. Self-concept clarity and intentional self-regulation are affected by the perception of the campus environment. At the same time, they also provide a motivational basis for students to engage in learning activities, and ultimately lead to excellent academic performance and the possibility of lifelong learning.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

A total of 1800 Chinese adolescents from the Gansu Province, China were recruited in this study and a total of 1597 participants completed the study questionnaire. The rest of the participants (203) did not fully complete the survey questionnaire. Among participants, 512 (32.1%) were junior high school students, 614 (38.4%) were senior high school students, and 471 (29.5%) were college students. Participants’ ages ranged between 12 and 22 years (M = 16.3; SD = 2.2 years). Among them, 825 (51.7%) were girls and 772 (48.3%) were boys.

2.2. Procedure

In this study, the sample was recruited utilizing a convenience sampling technique from a total of 48 classes of 7 junior high schools, 6 high schools, and 3 universities in Gansu province, China. A total of 1800 students from these 48 classes were surveyed. The graduate psychology students conducted onsite anonymous tests based on the class. Then, the completed answer scale was checked, and a total of 193 invalid questionnaires were excluded due to missing answers. There were 1597 valid questionnaires, and the effective rate was 88.72%. SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 24.0 were used for the survey data management and analyses. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, confirmatory factor analysis, and Bootstrap analysis. Finally, a structural equation model was used to verify the relationship between the four variables and confirm the model.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Study Engagement Scale

The Chinese version [22] of the Study Engagement Scale [2] was utilized to assess the study engagement. This scale comprises a total of 17 questions under 3 dimensions: vitality (“When I study, I feel energetic”), dedication (“I find it challenging to study”), and focus (“When I study, I forget everything around me”). Participants answered each question utilizing a seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (never had) to 7 (always). The higher scores suggest a higher level of learning inputs. The questionnaire has shown good reliability and validity [4]. In this study, this scale had good internal consistency reliability (α = 0.94). The confirmatory factor analysis also showed good model fits (χ2/df = 4.56, comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.97, normed fit index [NFI] = 0.97, goodness of fit index [GFI] = 0.96, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.05).

2.3.2. Perceptions of School Climate Scale

The Perceptions of School Climate Scale [23] was utilized to assess the students’ perception about school climate. This 25-item scale has three dimensions: teacher support (i.e., “I can talk to my teachers about my problems”), student-student support (i.e., ‘‘Students respect one another’’), and opportunities for autonomy in the classroom (i.e., ‘‘Students get to help decide some of the rules’’). Participants responded on this scale utilizing a four-point Likert-type scoring, ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (always). Among the 25 items, seven items (e.g., “Students call each other bad names”) were reverse scored. The higher scores suggest more favorable perceptions of the campus environment. Brand et al. [24] reported good reliability and validity of this scale. In this study, this scale also had good internal consistency reliability (α = 0.81). The confirmatory factor analysis also showed acceptable model fits (χ2/df = 7.06, CFI = 0.89, NFI = 0.87, GFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.06).

2.3.3. Intentional Self-Regulation Scale

The Chinese version [25] of the Intentional Self-Regulation Scale [19] was utilized to assess the students’ internal self-regulation. The scale consists of 9 questions, including 3 dimensions: target selection (i.e., “I can always think of it one or two important goals”), target optimization (i.e., “In order to achieve my goal, I will try every possible way and method”), and target compensation (i.e., “When I come across something that I can’t solve, I will ask others for help”). Participants responded on this scale utilizing a five-point Likert-type, ranging from 1 (completely inconsistent) to 5 (completely conforming). The higher scores suggest higher intentional self-regulation ability. Gestsdottir et al. [26] reported good reliability and validity of this scale. In this study, the Intentional Self-Regulation Scale also had good internal consistency reliability (α = 0.84). The confirmatory factor analysis also showed acceptable model fits (χ2/df = 2.01, CFI = 0.99, NFI = 0.99, GFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.03).

2.3.4. Self-Concept Clarity Scale

The Chinese version [27] of the Self-Concept Clarity Scale [17] was utilized to assess self-concept clarity. The Chinese version of this scale has a unidimensional factor structure and contains 8 items—the original scale has 2 factors and 12 items—(e.g., “My beliefs about myself often conflict with one another”). Participants responded on this scale utilizing a five-point Likert-type scoring, ranging from 1 (completely inconsistent) to 5 (completely consistent). The higher scores in this scale suggest higher clarity of self-concept. Studies have shown that the scale has good reliability and validity [28]. In this study, the scale also had acceptable internal consistency reliability (α = 0.81). The confirmatory factor analysis also showed good model fits (χ2/df = 3.58, CFI = 0.95, NFI = 0.93, GFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.04).

3. Ethics

This study was conducted in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration as well as its subsequent amendments as the present study included data from the human participants. This study has been approved by the Ethical Committee of Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou, China (IRB no.-2020031, dated–22/10/2020). Before commencing the survey, students were informed of the research intentions, cost and benefits, accomplishment time, and data confidentiality. After understanding the nature of the research, they provided their informed consent to participate in this study.

4. Results

4.1. Common Method Bias

This study utilized self-rating scales that may be subject to common method bias (CMB) issues. Therefore, in the process of testing, while the privacy of the subjects was protected, some items were controlled by reverse scoring. The Harman’s single-factor analysis was used to test the common method bias deviation during data processing. The results showed that there were twelve eigenvalues greater than one, explaining 54.92% of the variation. The first factor explained the variation of 19.25%, which was far less than the critical value of 40%, indicating that the common method deviation had little effect.

4.2. Descriptive Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics of the study variables are presented in Table 1. Skewness (ranged between −0.890 and −0.039) and kurtosis (ranged between −0.057 and 1.716) values were lower than the recommended cut-offs for assessing normality. Kim [29] recommends a skewness value of 2 or higher and a kurtosis value of 7 or higher to suggest non-normality of the data. The correlations between the variables were positive and statistically significant (p < 0.001).

4.3. The Mediating Role of Self-Concept Clarity and Intentionality Self-Regulation

AMOS 24.0 was used to test the hypothesis for the structural equation model. In view of the fact that the deviation-corrected percentile Bootstrap method can effectively reduce type II errors [30], the deviation-corrected percentile Bootstrap method was further used to test the mediating effect of perceptions of school climate on student study engagement (5000 Bootstrap samples were randomly selected). The structural equation model analysis results show that the model fits the data very well (χ2/df = 3.17, CFI = 0.99, NFI = 0.98, GFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR = 0.03). The standard load of all the observed variables on the corresponding latent variables was between 0.45 and 0.90, indicating that: the measurement model reached the standard, the observed variables can reflect the corresponding latent variables, and the structural model can be further tested. In Figure 2, the perceptions of school climate directly predicted study engagement (β = 0.31, p < 0.001), which confirms Hypothesis 1. Perceptions of school climate positively predicted self-concept clarity (β = 0.21, p < 0.001); self-concept clarity positively predicted study engagement (β = 0.15, p < 0.001). Here self-concept clarity mediated the impact of school climate perception on study engagement. This mediational result confirmed Hypothesis 2. School climate perception positively predicted intentional self-regulation (β = 0.51, p < 0.001); in addition, intentional self-regulation positively predicted self-concept clarity (β = 0.12, p < 0.001) and study engagement (β = 0.36, p < 0.001). Here, intentional self-regulation and self-concept clarity play a chain-mediated role in the influence of school climate perception on study engagement. This meditational result confirmed Hypotheses 3 and 4.
To obtain reliable test results regarding the mediation effects, the method of bias-corrected nonparametric percentage Bootstrap 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was utilized to test the mediating effect. If the confidence interval does not contain 0, the mediating effect is significant. The direct effect of school climate perception on study engagement was 2.061, accounting for 57.97% of the total effect of school climate perception on student study engagement and the 95% CI was (1.473, 2.730), indicating a significant direct effect. The total indirect effect of self-concept clarity and intentional self-regulation on the impact of school climate perception on student study engagement was 1.494, accounting for 42.025% of the total effect of school climate perception on student study engagement, and the 95% CI was (1.179, 1.916). The mediating effect was composed of two indirect effect paths (see Table 2). Initially, the indirect effect of “school climate perception → intentional self-regulation → study engagement” was 1.219, accounting for 34.290% of the total effect. Then, the indirect effect composed of school climate perception → self-concept clarity → study engagement was 0.214, accounting for 6.020% of the total effect. Lastly, the chain indirect effect value of “perceptions of school climate → intentional self-regulation → self-concept clarity → study engagement” was 0.061 (1.716 %). In this path model, the direct effect value was greater than the indirect effect value. Students’ perception of school climate, self-concept clarity, and intentional self-regulation explained 41.26% variability of their study engagement. The overall results of this study showed that positive school climate perception improves students’ self-concept clarity and increases international self-regulation that finally enhances the study engagement.

5. Discussion

Throughout one’s lifetime, learning in a formal academic context may end, but human beings never stop learning. Learning often comes in several ways and appears in various contexts but is most often characterized by study engagement. Study engagement is regarded as one of the crucial factors concerning academic achievement and performance that simultaneously predicts adolescents’ social adaptation and professional improvement. Unlike academic learning, study engagement can stabilize one’s mental health state and helps reduce distress as well as dissatisfaction. Thus, the present study investigated the impacts of the perception of the campus environment, self-concept clarity, and intentional self-regulation on study engagement.
The results showed that adolescents’ perceptions of school climate associated with their study engagement predicted learning activities. In the structural equation pathway model, the direct effect of school climate perception on study engagement was greater than that the indirect effect of self-concept clarity and intentional self-regulation. It can be seen that the more students experience teacher and peer support, the more harmonious the student–teacher and peer–peer relationships. The implication of this result is that such cohesive relationships can foster a more supportive environment, as previous literature has shown the higher the degree of participation in the learning environment, the more likely students are to be actively engaged in learning [20]. More importantly, in the context of collectivist culture, Chinese schools attach great importance to comprehensive development in morals, intelligence, sports, aesthetics, and labor education. The concrete manifestations of morality include loving the collective, respecting teachers, uniting classmates, helping each other, caring for others, and so on. A supportive relationship between teachers, students, and classmates can promote interaction between students and other elements in the environment and form positive study engagement behaviors.
The results also showed that teacher support promoted students’ study engagement behavior, which is consistent with existing research [31]. When students receive the care and support of teachers, they use actions to strive for academic goals [32]. Since ancient times, China has respected teachers and emphasized education and regards this tradition as the basis of social civilization and progress. In ancient times, those who wanted to learn would seek out a teacher who could propagate the doctrine, impart professional knowledge, and resolve doubts. A teacher is not only a teacher of the profession but also a teacher of preaching. The student–teacher relationship, advocated by schools, ranges from “to be a teacher for one day and a father for life” to “both mentor and friend.” Students’ school learning activities are completed under teachers’ guidance, relying on teachers’ support, encouragement, and help. Students’ school learning activities also need good peer relationships. Students who perceive a closer relationship between classmates and receive more support tend to receive better grades than those who do not [33]. It can be seen that mutual respect, help, trust, and love of students are a favorable learning environment, while conflicts and indifference are unfavorable learning environments. In addition, adolescents with higher perceptions of autonomy in the school environment tend to have better academic performance [34]. Students need independent opportunities for learning. For example, having the opportunity to assist in formulating curriculum arrangements and classroom rules can improve students’ participation and sense of ownership in school life.
The results of this study also showed that the perceptions of the school climate directly and positively impacted study engagement and indirectly and positively impacted study engagement through the mediating effect of self-concept clarity. Students’ self-concept clarity is positively impacted by their perceptions of school climate. This perception reflects the adolescents’ perception of the interpersonal environment and activity participation in the school which influences the adolescents’ study engagement behavior. Existing studies have also shown that the clarity of self-concept can predict the understanding of the meaning of life [35,36] and promote learning behavior. More importantly, in the context of collectivist culture, Chinese people are interdependent selves. Their self-concepts include others who they consider important such as parents, teachers, close partners, etc. [37]. The relationship between teachers and students, classmates, and the autonomy of Chinese students’ learning activities impacts whether the scope of their self-concepts is clear, consistent, and stable in time. Conversely, the clarity of a self-concept affects students’ learning activities.
The perception of the campus environment contributes to a clear, consistent, and stable understanding of self-concept, and further affects their learning behavior. The interdependent self can be subdivided into different relationships and the collective self, in China. The theory of social identity also points out that individuals can obtain a sense of self-esteem from their collective members and the success of the collective and that individuals with high satisfaction with their environment have a high level of clarity of collective self [38]. In their subsequent research, Usborne and Taylor’s [39] results showed that the self-evaluation of subjects with a high collective identity under clear and consistent conditions was significantly higher than that under clear and inconsistent or unclear conditions. In addition, existing studies also suggested a positive association between students’ evaluation of themselves with their study engagement.
The present study’s results also showed that the perceptions of school climate directly impacted study engagement and indirectly impacted study engagement through intentional self-regulation. Meanwhile, compared with self-concept clarity, intentional self-regulation had a higher mediating role on the association between perception of school climate and study engagement. Although the research on the relationship between school climate and intentional self-regulation has always received attention, no consensus results have been reached [40,41]. In addition, intentional self-regulation is also considered an important outcome variable of school environment perception [42,43]. This research validated the motivation model of Skinner and Pitzer [21], which has demonstrated how situations and individual behavior interact to predict academic achievement [44]. The present study’s findings also provided an understanding of campus environment perceptions and intentional self-regulation to promote learning behavior together.

6. Limitations and Future Research

The present study has some limitations. First, the research participants recruited in this study were teenagers and young adults in Northwest China. However, compared with other regions in China (such as Southwest China, Central China, and Eastern China), Northwest China is a relatively backward region with a relatively backward economy, backward educational concepts, and scarce educational resources. Therefore, it is not clear whether the results of this study are generalizable to teenagers and young adults in the more developed areas of central and eastern China. Second, self-rated scales were utilized to collect data that could be subjected to biases like social desirability bias, memory recall, etc. Further research should include a representative sample from different regions of China for generalizability. Besides this, qualitative studies should be undertaken to explain the underlying mechanism behind the associations between study variables.

7. Recommendations

Result of this study showed positive school climate perception improve students’ self-concept clarity and self-regulation, which ultimately impact on their study engagement and academic achievement. The campus environment is a hidden curriculum in school education, and we are committed to creating an atmosphere conducive to student learning in order to better guide students to engage in learning. Therefore, establishing an equal and friendly student–teacher relationship and emphasizing student’s practical skills would be helpful for maintaining harmonious relationships with all. Studies have found that cognitive training can improve the clarity of self-concept of college students; therefore, learning from cognitive behavioral therapy, group counseling, and individuals who can train students on recognizing their self-concept could be explored in further research to see their individual impacts. In addition, in comparison to the incongruent condition, the self-concept clarity of the participants in the congruent condition was significantly improved. Adolescents have weak self-control and are prone to behaviors that deviate from their learning goals or even “target drift.” Studies have shown that intentional self-regulation in adolescents is flexible. Cognitive behavior training can improve students’ intentional self-regulation ability, allowing students to form cognitively enhanced individual functions or optimize learning development. The authority of institutions, stakeholders, and policymakers may emphasize improving students’ school climate perception. A better learning outcome ultimately enhances the country’s socio-economic development.

8. Conclusions

This study showed that students’ perception of the campus environment predicted study engagement, and this association was mediated by self-concept clarity and intentional self-regulation. Although individual learning behavior is affected by many factors, positive learning behavior can be developed. This study’s results have important educational significance for optimizing students’ learning behavior and improving their learning effect. Results would help teachers, parents, education providers, and other stakeholders to implement programs to get a better perception of the campus environment that ultimately could help improve the students’ study engagement and ensure quality learning.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.Z. and X.G.; Methodology, A.Z., X.G., and M.Z.A.; Software, X.G. and O.A.; Formal Analysis, X.G., O.A., and F.A.H.; Investigation, X.G.; Resources, A.Z.; Data Curation, X.G.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, X.G., O.A., M.Z.A., and M.C.J.; Writing—Review & Editing, O.A., M.Z.A., M.C.J., and F.A.H.; Supervision, A.Z.; Project Administration, X.G.; Funding Acquisition, X.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the academic requirements for the National Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under grant No. 31660281 and Yunnan Provincial Philosophy and Social Science Planning Youth Project under grant No. QN2018055.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration as well as its subsequent amendments as the present study included data from the human participants. This study has been approved by the Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou, China’s Ethical Committee (IRB no: 2020031, dated: 22 October 2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Before commencing the survey, students and guardians were informed regarding the research intentions, cost and benefits, accomplishment time, and data confidentiality. After understanding the research nature, students over 18 years and the guardians for the students aged below 18 years provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Loscalzo, Y.; Giannini, M. Study Engagement in Italian University Students: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale—Student Version. Soc. Indic. Res. 2018, 142, 845–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Schaufeli, W.B.; Martínez, I.M.; Pinto, A.M.; Salanova, M.; Bakker, A.B. Burnout and Engagement in University Students. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2002, 33, 464–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Reschly, A.L.; Christenson, S.L. Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement; Christenson, S.L., Reschly, A.L., Wylie, C., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Salmela-Aro, K.; Read, S. Study engagement and burnout profiles among Finnish higher education students. Burn. Res. 2017, 7, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bask, M.; Salmela-Aro, K. Burned out to drop out: Exploring the relationship between school burnout and school dropout. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 2013, 28, 511–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Salmela-Aro, K.; Upadyaya, K. School burnout and engagement in the context of demands-resources model. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2014, 84 Pt 1, 137–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bandura, A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Martin, A.J.; Way, J.; Bobis, J.; Anderson, J. Exploring the ups and downs of mathematics engagement in the middle years of school. J. Early Adolesc. 2014, 35, 199–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, M.-T.; DeGol, J.L. School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2016, 28, 315–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Roeser, R.W.; Eccles, J.S.; Sameroff, A.J. School as a context of early adolescents’ academic and social-emotional development: A summary of research findings. Elem. Sch. J. 2000, 100, 443–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fei, X. Rural China; Peking University Press: Beijing, China, 1998; pp. 24–30. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  12. Markus, H.R.; Kitayama, S. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol. Rev. 1991, 98, 224–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Szalacha, L.A. Safer sexual diversity climates: Lessons learned from an evaluation of Massachusetts safe schools program for gay and lesbian students. Am. J. Educ. 2003, 110, 58–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Crocetti, E.; Rubini, M.; Branje, S.; Koot, H.M.; Meeus, W. Self-concept clarity in adolescents and parents: A six-wave longitudinal and multi-informant study on development and intergenerational transmission. J. Personal. 2015, 84, 580–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Slotter, E.B.; Emery, L.F. Self-concept clarity and social role transitions. In Self-Concept Clarity; Jennifer, L., Kenneth, D.G., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 85–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fite, R.E.; Lindeman, M.I.; Rogers, A.P.; Voyles, E.; Durik, A.M. Knowing oneself and long-term goal pursuit: Relations among self-concept clarity, conscientiousness, and grit. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2017, 108, 191–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Campbell, J.D.; Trapnell, P.D.; Heine, S.J.; Katz, I.M.; Lavallee, L.F.; Lehman, D.R. Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 70, 141–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Stefansson, K.K.; Gestsdottir, S.; Birgisdottir, F.; Lerner, R.M. School engagement and intentional self-regulation: A reciprocal relation in adolescence. J. Adolesc. 2018, 64, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Freund, A.M.; Baltes, P.B. Life-management strategies of selection, optimization and compensation: Measurement by self-report and construct validity. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 82, 642–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tuominen-Soini, H.; Salmela-Aro, K. Linking student motivation and well-being: Achievement goal orientation profiles and socio-emotional outcomes. Pathfind. Pathw. Adulthood Newsl. 2014, 7, 4–6. [Google Scholar]
  21. Skinner, E.A.; Pitzer, J.R. Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement; Christenson, S., Reschly, A., Wylie, C., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 21–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fang, L.T.; Shi, K.; Zhang, F.H. Research on reliability and validity of Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-student. Chin. J. Clin. Psychol. 2008, 16, 29–31. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  23. Jia, Y.; Way, N.; Ling, G.; Yoshikawa, H.; Chen, X.; Hughes, D.; Ke, X.; Lu, Z. The influence of student perceptions of school climate on socioemotional and academic adjustment: A comparison of Chinese and American adolescents. Child Dev. 2009, 80, 1514–1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Brand, S.; Felner, R.; Shim, M.; Seitsinger, A.; Dumas, T. Middle school improvement and reform: Development and validation of a school-level assessment of climate, cultural pluralism, and school safety. J. Educ. Psychol. 2003, 95, 570–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chang, S.; Guo, M.; Wang, J.; Wang, L.; Zhang, W. The influence of school assets on the development of well-being during early adolescence: Longitudinal mediating effect of intentional self-regulation. Acta Psychol. Sin. 2020, 52, 874–885. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  26. Gestsdottir, S.; Geldhof, G.J.; Paus, T.; Freund, A.M.; Adalbjarnardottir, S.; Lerner, J.V.; Lerner, R.M. Self-regulation among youth in four Western cultures: Is there an adolescence-specific structure of the Selection-Optimization-Compensation (SOC) model? Int. J. Behav. Dev. 2015, 39, 346–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Xu, H. Research on the relationship between self-concept clarity and psychological adjustment. Psychol. Sci. 2007, 30, 96–99. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  28. Suszek, H.; Fronczyk, K.; Kopera, M.; Maliszewski, N. Implicit and explicit self-concept clarity and psychological adjustment. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2018, 123, 253–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kim, H.-Y. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restor. Dent. Endod. 2013, 38, 52–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. MacKinnon, D.P.; Lockwood, C.M.; Williams, J. Confidence Limits for the Indirect Effect: Distribution of the Product and Resampling Methods. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2004, 39, 99–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Shochet, I.M.; Dadds, M.R.; Ham, D.; Montague, R. School connectedness is an underemphasized parameter in adolescent mental health: Results of a community prediction study. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 2006, 35, 170–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Bryson, C.; Hand, L. The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2007, 44, 349–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Konishi, C.; Hymel, S.; Zumbo, B.D.; Li, Z. Do School Bullying and Student—Teacher Relationships Matter for Academic Achievement? A Multilevel Analysis. Can. J. Sch. Psychol. 2010, 25, 19–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Miserandino, M. Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived competence and autonomy in above-average children. J. Educ. Psychol. 1996, 88, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. George, L.S.; Park, C.L. The multidimensional existential meaning scale: A tripartite approach to measuring meaning in life. J. Posit. Psychol. 2017, 12, 613–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Shin, J.Y.; Steger, M.F.; Henry, K.L. Self-concept clarity’s role in meaning in life among American college students: A latent growth approach. Self Identity 2015, 15, 206–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhu, Y. Culture and the Self; Beijing Normal University Press: Beijing, China, 2007; pp. 101–210. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  38. Usborne, E.; Taylor, D.M. The role of cultural identity clarity for self-concept clarity, self-esteem, and subjective well-being. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2010, 36, 883–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Usborne, E.; Taylor, D.M. Using computer-mediated communication as a tool for exploring the impact of cultural identity clarity on psychological well-being. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 34, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ning, H.K.; Downing, K. The reciprocal relationship between motivation and self-regulation: A longitudinal study on academic performance. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2010, 20, 682–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gestsdottir, S.; Lerner, R.M. Positive development in Adolescence: The development and role of intentional self-regulation. Hum. Dev. 2008, 51, 202–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cleary, T.J.; Zimmerman, B.J. A cyclical self-regulatory account of student engagement: Theoretical foundations and applications. In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement; Christenson, S.L., Reschly, A.L., Wylie, C., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 237–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wolters, C.A.; Taylor, D.J. A cyclical self-regulatory account of student engagement: Theoretical foundations and applications. In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement; Christenson, S.L., Reschly, A.L., Wylie, C., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 635–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lerner, R.M.; Lerner, J.V.; Bowers, E.P.; Geldhof, G.J. Positive youth development and relational-developmental-systems. In Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science: Theory and Method; Overton, W.F., Molenaar, P.C.M., Lerner, R.M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 607–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 05475 g001 550
Figure 1. A hypothetical model of the effect of school environment perception on study engagement through self-cognition.
Figure 1. A hypothetical model of the effect of school environment perception on study engagement through self-cognition.
Sustainability 13 05475 g001
Sustainability 13 05475 g002 550
Figure 2. The path model of adolescents’ study engagement. Note. p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2. The path model of adolescents’ study engagement. Note. p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Sustainability 13 05475 g002
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the study variables (n = 1597).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the study variables (n = 1597).
VariablesMSDSkewnessKurtosis1234
1. Perceptions of school climate2.470.41−0.0731.3451
2. Intentional self-regulation3.510.68−0.8901.7160.38 **1
3. Self-concept clarity3.010.63−0.123−0.0490.22 **0.21 **1
4. Study engagement3.991.16−0.039−0.0570.43 **0.48 **0.30 **1
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation. ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 2. Bootstrap analysis of significance test of mediation effect (n = 1597).
Table 2. Bootstrap analysis of significance test of mediation effect (n = 1597).
PathEffectSEBoot LLCIBoot ULCIEffect Size (%)
PSC → ISR → SE1.2190.1760.921 1.593 34.290
PSC → SCC → SE0.2140.0470.1330.3236.020
PSC → SCC → ISR → SE0.0610.0200.0270.109 1.716
Direct effect (PSC → SE)2.0610.3251.4732.73057.975
Indirect effect1.494 1.1791.91642.025
Total effect3.555 2.8624.341100.00
Note. PSC = perceptions of school climate; SCC = self-concept clarity; ISR = intentional self-regulation; SE = study engagement; SE = standard error; LLCI = lower-level confidence interval; ULCI = upper-level confidence interval.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhou, A.; Guan, X.; Ahmed, M.Z.; Ahmed, O.; Jobe, M.C.; Hiramoni, F.A. An Analysis of the Influencing Factors of Study Engagement and Its Enlightenment to Education: Role of Perceptions of School Climate and Self-Perception. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5475. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105475

AMA Style

Zhou A, Guan X, Ahmed MZ, Ahmed O, Jobe MC, Hiramoni FA. An Analysis of the Influencing Factors of Study Engagement and Its Enlightenment to Education: Role of Perceptions of School Climate and Self-Perception. Sustainability. 2021; 13(10):5475. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105475

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhou, Aibao, Xiangli Guan, Md Zahir Ahmed, Oli Ahmed, Mary C. Jobe, and Fatema Akhter Hiramoni. 2021. "An Analysis of the Influencing Factors of Study Engagement and Its Enlightenment to Education: Role of Perceptions of School Climate and Self-Perception" Sustainability 13, no. 10: 5475. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105475

APA Style

Zhou, A., Guan, X., Ahmed, M. Z., Ahmed, O., Jobe, M. C., & Hiramoni, F. A. (2021). An Analysis of the Influencing Factors of Study Engagement and Its Enlightenment to Education: Role of Perceptions of School Climate and Self-Perception. Sustainability, 13(10), 5475. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105475

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop