Randomized trial examines the role of student engagement in developing competencies among Chinese university students, suggesting key institutional strategies.
HRMARS - The rapid diffusion of artificial intelligence (AI) into higher education has intensified concern over how universities can cultivate the twenty-first-century competencies, namely critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and communication, that graduates increasingly require. This study examined how five antecedents, namely AI literacy, perceived teacher support, academic self-efficacy, growth mindset, and facilitating conditions, relate to these competencies among Chinese university students, and the extent to which student engagement mediates these relationships. Integrating Social Cognitive Theory, Self-Determination Theory, and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology within a presage-process-product logic, the study tested sixteen hypotheses using partial least squares structural equation modelling on cross-sectional survey data from 400 undergraduates. The measurement model demonstrated satisfactory reliability and validity, and the structural model explained 49.1% of the variance in student engagement and 58.4% in twenty-first-century competencies. Eleven hypotheses were supported. AI literacy, perceived teacher support, academic self-efficacy, and growth mindset each predicted engagement; engagement predicted competencies; and engagement mediated the effects of all four antecedents, fully mediating perceived teacher support and growth mindset. Facilitating conditions showed no significant association with either engagement or competencies. The findings position student engagement as the common behavioural pathway through which personal and social antecedents are converted into competency, and they suggest that institutional strategy should prioritise the cultivation of AI literacy and supportive teaching over the provision of technological infrastructure alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nanqiao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: