Undergraduate Engineering Students’ Engagement in Blended Learning: Insights from the Two-Factor Theory and the Mediating Role of Learning Motivation

Thi-Duyen Nguyen; Van-Hanh Nguyen

doi:10.3991/ijep.v16i1.59379

Authors

Thi-Duyen Nguyen Hanoi University of Science and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0367-8244
Van-Hanh Nguyen Hanoi University of Science and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9987-4151

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v16i1.59379

Keywords:

Blended learning, undergraduate students, engineering students, hygiene factors, motivator factors, learning motivation, learning engagement

Abstract

This study explains undergraduate engineering students’ engagement in blended learning through the lens of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory and the mediating role of learning motivation. Survey data from 656 engineering students enrolled in blended courses at Hanoi University of Science and Technology were analyzed using PLS-SEM. Results indicated that motivator factors strongly influenced learning motivation, which in turn significantly predicted learning engagement, while hygiene factors had only a small direct effect on learning motivation but an indirect role through motivator factors. Mediation analysis confirmed a sequential path (hygiene factors → motivator factors → motivation → engagement), explaining 58% of motivation and 78% of engagement variance. The findings highlight that stable course conditions enable pedagogy-centered motivators to activate motivation and sustain engagement. Practical implications emphasize the need for designing blended courses that combine reliable technical environments with intrinsically motivating learning designs.

Author Biographies

Thi-Duyen Nguyen, Hanoi University of Science and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam

Thi-Duyen Nguyen is a PhD in educational theory and history. Her research interests are in the topics of blended learning/e-learning, and technology-enhanced learning.

Van-Hanh Nguyen, Hanoi University of Science and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam

Van-Hanh Nguyen is an Associate Professor of Educational Sciences working at the Faculty of Education, Hanoi University of Science and Technology, Vietnam. He graduated with a PhD in 2017 from Hanoi National University of Education, Vietnam. In 2021, he was recognized by the Vietnam National Council of Professors for the title of Associate Professor. In 2022, he was appointed as associate professor by Hanoi University of Science and Technology, and was appointed as senior lecturer by the Ministry of Education and Training, Vietnam. His main research interests are in the fields of language education, engineering education, educational technology, adult education, experiential education, and STEM Education.

References

[1] L. A. Obukhova, V. G. Olga, O. B. Igor, V. B. Roman, A. K. Lyubov, and V. D. Tatyana, “Formation of Organizational Competence of Future Engineers By Means of Blended Learning,” International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), vol. 10, doi: 10.3991/ijep.v10i2.12047.

[2] K.-B. Tamás, “Learning Portfolio and Proactive Learning in Higher Education Pedagogy,” International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), no. 5, pp. 34–48, 2020, doi: 10.3991/ijep.v10i5.13793.

[3] R. Kandakatla, E. J. Berger, J. F. Rhoads, and J. DeBoer, “Student Perspectives on the Learning Resources in an Active, Blended, and Collaborative (ABC) Pedagogical Environment,” International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 7–31, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.3991/ijep.v10i2.11606.

[4] N. T. Long and N. Van Hanh, “A Structural Equation Model of Blended Learning Culture in the Classroom.,” International Journal of Higher Education, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 99–115, 2020.

[5] N. T. Tuyet, N. T. Long, and N. Van Hanh, “The effect of positive learning culture in students’ blended learning process,” Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 68–75, 2020, doi: 10.20368/1971-8829/1135218.

[6] C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham, The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. Wiley+ ORM, 2012.

[7] L. M. Jeffrey, J. Milne, G. Suddaby, and A. Higgins, “Blended learning: How teachers balance the blend of online and classroom components.,” Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, vol. 13, 2014, doi: 10.28945/1968.

[8] H. T. Q. Lan, N. T. Long, and N. Van Hanh, “Validation of depression, anxiety and stress scales (Dass-21): Immediate psychological responses of students in the e-learning environment.,” International Journal of Higher Education, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 125–133, 2020.

[9] R. I. Platonova, N. A. Orekhovskaya, S. B. Dautova, E. V Martynenko, N. I. Kryukova, and S. Demir, “Blended learning in higher education: Diversifying models and practical recommendations for researchers,” Front Educ (Lausanne), vol. 7, p. 957199, 2022, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.957199.

[10] M. Eryilmaz, “The Effectiveness of Blended Learning Environments.,” Contemporary Issues in Education Research, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 251–256, 2015.

[11] N. T. Long and N. Van Hanh, “A Structural Equation Model of Blended Learning Culture in the Classroom.,” International Journal of Higher Education, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 99–115, 2020.

[12] R. M. Bernard, E. Borokhovski, R. F. Schmid, R. M. Tamim, and P. C. Abrami, “A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: from the general to the applied,” J Comput High Educ, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 87–122, 2014, doi: 10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3.

[13] C. Dziuban and P. Moskal, “A course is a course is a course: Factor invariance in student evaluation of online, blended and face-to-face learning environments,” Internet High Educ, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 236–241, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.05.003.

[14] A. Istenič, “Blended learning in higher education: the integrated and distributed model and a thematic analysis,” Discover Education, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 165, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s44217-024-00239-y.

[15] P. Baepler, J. D. Walker, and M. Driessen, “It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms,” Comput Educ, vol. 78, pp. 227–236, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006.

[16] H. M. Selim, “Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models,” Comput Educ, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 396–413, 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.09.004.

[17] L. R. Halverson and C. R. Graham, “Learner engagement in blended learning environments: A conceptual framework.,” Online learning, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 145–178, 2019.

[18] W. Cao, “A meta-analysis of effects of blended learning on performance, attitude, achievement, and engagement across different countries,” Front Psychol, vol. 14, p. 1212056, 2023, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1212056.

[19] A. Dwivedi, P. Dwivedi, S. Bobek, and S. Sternad Zabukovšek, “Factors affecting students’ engagement with online content in blended learning,” Kybernetes, vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 1500–1515, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.1108/K-10-2018-0559.

[20] R. A. Green, L. Y. Whitburn, A. Zacharias, G. Byrne, and D. L. Hughes, “The relationship between student engagement with online content and achievement in a blended learning anatomy course,” Anat Sci Educ, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 471–477, 2018, doi: 10.1002/ase.1761.

[21] S. Lane, J. G. Hoang, J. P. Leighton, and A. Rissanen, “Engagement and Satisfaction: Mixed-Method Analysis of Blended Learning in the Sciences,” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 100–122, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s42330-021-00139-5.

[22] A.-M. Nortvig, A. K. Petersen, and S. H. Balle, “A literature review of the factors influencing e learning and blended learning in relation to learning outcome, student satisfaction and engagement,” Electronic Journal of E-learning, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. pp46-55, 2018.

[23] F. Herzberg, B. Mausner, and B. B. Snyderman, The motivation to work, vol. 1. Transaction publishers, 2011.

[24] A. H. S. Dzaiy and S. A. Abdullah, “The use of active learning strategies to foster effective teaching in higher education institutions,” Zanco Journal of Human Sciences, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 328–351, 2024.

[25] C. J. Hellín, F. Calles-Esteban, A. Valledor, J. Gómez, S. Otón-Tortosa, and A. Tayebi, “Enhancing student motivation and engagement through a gamified learning environment,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 19, p. 14119, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914119.

[26] Rosemary Fisher, Áron Perényi, and Naomi Birdthistle, “The positive relationship between flipped and blended learning and student engagement, performance and satisfaction,” Active Learning in Higher Education, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 97–113, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.1177/1469787418801702.

[27] D. H. Schunk and C. A. Mullen, “Self-efficacy as an engaged learner,” in Handbook of research on student engagement, Springer, 2012, pp. 219–235.

[28] L. Alemayehu and H.-L. Chen, “The influence of motivation on learning engagement: the mediating role of learning self-efficacy and self-monitoring in online learning environments,” Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 4605–4618, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2021.1977962.

[29] J. M. Froiland and F. C. Worrell, “Intrinsic motivation, learning goals, engagement, and achievement in a diverse high school,” Psychol Sch, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 321–336, 2016.

[30] H. Lei, C. Chen, and L. Luo, “The examination of the relationship between learning motivation and learning effectiveness: a mediation model of learning engagement,” Humanit Soc Sci Commun, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 137, 2024, doi: 10.1057/s41599-024-02666-6.

[31] E. M. Anderman and H. Patrick, “Achievement goal theory, conceptualization of ability/intelligence, and classroom climate,” in Handbook of research on student engagement, Springer, 2012, pp. 173–191.

[32] J. Sahni, “Does blended learning enhance student engagement? Evidence from higher education,” Journal of E-learning and Higher Education, vol. 2019, no. 2019, pp. 1–14, 2019, doi: 10.5171/2019.121518.

[33] R. S. Baragash and H. Al-Samarraie, “Blended learning: Investigating the influence of engagement in multiple learning delivery modes on students’ performance,” Telematics and Informatics, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 2082–2098, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2018.07.010.

[34] K. C. Manwaring, R. Larsen, C. R. Graham, C. R. Henrie, and L. R. Halverson, “Investigating student engagement in blended learning settings using experience sampling and structural equation modeling,” Internet High Educ, vol. 35, pp. 21–33, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.06.002.

[35] C. E. Morton et al., “Blended learning: how can we optimise undergraduate student engagement?,” BMC Med Educ, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 195, 2016, doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0716-z.

[36] C. Nickerson, “Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation-hygiene,” Simply Psychology, 2023.

[37] A. K. M. N. Islam, “Sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with a learning management system in post-adoption stage: A critical incident technique approach,” Comput Human Behav, vol. 30, pp. 249–261, 2014, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.09.010.

[38] D. R. Garrison, Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. Jossey-Bass, 2008. doi: DOI:10.1002/9781118269558.

[39] G. Kurubacak, “Building knowledge networks through project-based online learning: A study of developing critical thinking skills via reusable learning objects,” Comput Human Behav, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 2668–2695, 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2006.08.003.

[40] C. T. Mart, “Commitment to school and students,” International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 336, 2013.

[41] C. Dziuban, C. R. Graham, P. D. Moskal, A. Norberg, and N. Sicilia, “Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 3, 2018, doi: 10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5.

[42] L. AlAbdulkarim and A. Albarrak, “Students’ attitudes and satisfaction towards blended learning in the health sciences,” in International Conference on Advances in Education and Social Sciences, 2015, p. 434.

[43] J. Ma, C. Li, and H.-N. Liang, “Enhancing students’ blended learning experience through embedding metaliteracy,” Educ Res Int, vol. 2019, no. 1, p. 6791058, 2019, doi: 10.1155/2019/6791058.

[44] K.-C. Chen and S.-J. Jang, “Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self-determination theory,” Comput Human Behav, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 741–752, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.011.

[45] Xiaoquan Pan, “Online Learning Environments, Learners’ Empowerment, and Learning Behavioral Engagement: The Mediating Role of Learning Motivation,” Sage Open, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 21582440231205096, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1177/21582440231205098.

[46] X. Han, “Associations between effectiveness of blended learning, student engagement, student learning outcomes, and student academic motivation in higher education,” Educ Inf Technol (Dordr), vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 10535–10565, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-13246-1.

[47] A. J. Martin, P. Ginns, and B. Papworth, “Motivation and engagement: Same or different? Does it matter?,” Learn Individ Differ, vol. 55, pp. 150–162, 2017.

[48] M. Ainley, “Students’ interest and engagement in classroom activities,” in Handbook of research on student engagement, Springer, 2012, pp. 283–302.

[49] Huma Akram and Shengji Li, “Understanding the Role of Teacher-Student Relationships in Students’ Online Learning Engagement: Mediating Role of Academic Motivation,” Percept Mot Skills, vol. 131, no. 4, pp. 1415–1438, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1177/00315125241248709.

[50] N. Aboobaker and M. K.H., “Effectiveness of web-based learning environment: role of intrinsic learning motivation, computer self-efficacy, and learner engagement,” Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 13–16, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1108/DLO-07-2021-0139.

[51] T. T. H. Pham, T. T. Q. Ho, B. T. N. Nguyen, H. T. Nguyen, and T. H. Nguyen, “Academic motivation and academic satisfaction: a moderated mediation model of academic engagement and academic self-efficacy,” Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 1999–2012, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1108/JARHE-10-2023-0474.

[52] L. Tara, I. Hidayati, and M. Susanti, “High school students’ motivation and engagement in online learning,” Journal of Psychological Perspective, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 65–68, 2022, doi: 10.47679/jopp.424062022.

[53] Y. Liu, S. Ma, and Y. Chen, “The impacts of learning motivation, emotional engagement and psychological capital on academic performance in a blended learning university course,” Front Psychol, vol. 15, p. 1357936, 2024, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1357936.

[54] N. Van Hanh and N. T. Long, “The Ethical Perception of Engineering Students Who Have Never Participated in the Ethics Curriculum.,” International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 4–20, 2022, doi: 10.3991/ijep.v12i1.21781.

[55] N. Van Hanh, N. T. Long, N. T. Duyen, P. T. T. Canh, N. T. Long, and M. D. Thang, “Teaching Engineering Ethics Through a Psychology Course,” International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 16–34, 2021, doi: 10.3991/ijep.v11i1.14999.

[56] J. F. Hair Jr, G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, N. P. Danks, and S. Ray, “Evaluation of reflective measurement models,” in Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook, Springer International Publishing Cham, 2021, pp. 75–90.

[57] P. Mishra and M. J. Koehler, “Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge,” Teach Coll Rec, vol. 108, no. 6, pp. 1017–1054, 2006.

[58] O. F. Ipek and H. T. Mutlu, “Developing a Scale of Motivation for Online English Language Education.,” International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, vol. 14, no. 5, 2022.

[59] J. Maroco, A. L. Maroco, J. A. D. B. Campos, and J. A. Fredricks, “University student’s engagement: development of the University Student Engagement Inventory (USEI),” Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, vol. 29, no. 1, p. 21, 2016, doi: 10.1186/s41155-016-0042-8.

[60] J. F. Hair, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, “PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 139–152, Apr. 2011, doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202.

[61] C. Nitzl, J. L. Roldan, and G. Cepeda, “Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling: Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models,” Industrial management & data systems, vol. 116, no. 9, pp. 1849–1864, 2016, doi: 10.1108/IMDS-07-2015-0302.