Background Hybrid learning requires students to sustain attention, regulate emotions, and use technology purposefully across physical and virtual spaces. Digital mindfulness has mainly been studied as a means of reducing psychological distress; its role as a pedagogical strategy for engagement has not been systematically synthesised. We aimed to identify the forms of digital mindfulness reported in relation to student engagement, how interventions are designed and implemented, the mechanisms through which they support engagement, and the direction of reported effects. Methods A systematic review following the PRISMA 2020 statement was conducted across Scopus, Web of Science, and ERIC for records published between January 2021 and July 2026. Eligible studies were English-language research articles in Scopus-indexed journals reporting quantitative or mixed-methods evidence. Screening was performed independently by two reviewers (Cohen’s kappa = 0.81), methodological quality was appraised with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and the evidence was analysed through thematic and narrative synthesis. The review followed PRISMA 2020 and was registered retrospectively on the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZNSMK). Results From 412 initial records, 14 articles met the inclusion criteria. Three forms of digital mindfulness were identified: psychological or dispositional capacity (36%), structured digital interventions (36%), and mindful agency in technology use (28%), operationalised through learning management systems, mobile applications, and guided practices supported by monitoring and mentoring. Digital mindfulness supported engagement by strengthening attention regulation, emotional management, motivation, self-efficacy, autonomy, participation, and persistence, with 79% of studies reporting positive effects, 14% limited effects, and 7% no significant relationship. Conclusions The study proposes an integrative conceptual model linking digital mindfulness to the behavioural, cognitive, and emotional dimensions of engagement, with practical implications for hybrid learning design. The evidence is limited by heterogeneous engagement measures and the dominance of online-learning and Asian research contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Firdaus et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: