Tang 

and Hew Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2022) 19:3

https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00306-6

RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access

Effects of using mobile instant messaging

on student behavioral, emotional, and cognitive
engagement: a quasi‑experimental study
Ying Tang*   and Khe Foon Hew 

*Correspondence:
[email protected] Abstract 
Faculty of Education, Mobile instant messaging (MIM) has become the most popular means for young peo-
Southwest University, 2
Tiansheng Road, Beibei, ple to communicate. MIM apps typically come with a myriad of features that educators
Chongqing, China may leverage to increase student learning. However, it remains poorly understood to
what extent and in what aspect MIM can facilitate student engagement. We address
the gap by comparing the effects of using MIM and asynchronous online discussion
(AOD) on student online engagement, using a quasi-experimental study involving a
historical cohort control group. Understanding which communication mode can bet-
ter promote student online engagement is particularly important during the current
widespread use of online learning. Specifically, we examined engagement from the
behavioral, emotional, and cognitive dimensions. The results showed that the MIM
group was more behaviorally engaged in discussion activities, producing more mes-
sages, more words, and higher rates of participation, task completion, and interaction.
Emotionally, no statistically significant difference was found in students’ affective evalu-
ation of course interaction and satisfaction between the two groups. However, MIM
appeared to help students with improved intimacy and interpersonal relationships.
Cognitively, the MIM group was more engaged than the AOD group. In particular, MIM
seemed to facilitate interactive idea exchange and thus contributing to more “creating”
activities. We conclude by providing suggestions for future instructional practice and
research directions.
Keywords:  Mobile instant messaging, Asynchronous online discussion, Engagement,
Higher education, Quasi-experimental

Introduction
With the wide penetration of smartphones and mobile broadband access, mobile instant
messaging (MIM) is becoming an essential means of communication worldwide (Dhir
et al., 2020). As of July 2020, WhatsApp was the most popular MIM app with 2 billion
monthly active users, followed by Facebook Messenger (1.3 billion) and WeChat (1.2 bil-
lion) (Statista, 2021). A recent study showed that MIM has surpassed voice calls, emails,
face-to-face communication, and social network sites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Ins-
tagram) and become the most popular means of daily communication (Pew Research
Center, 2019). Typical MIM apps offer various functions including group chats, audio/

© The Author(s), 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third
party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the mate-
rial. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​
creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.
Tang and Hew Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2022) 19:3 Page 2 of 22

video chats, file sharing, real-time location sharing, and exchange of nonverbal graphics
such as emoji and stickers.
MIM presents a unique “quasi-synchronous” communication because although posted
messages are available synchronously to participants, the message production process
(typing) is available only to the sender; the recipient does not have direct access to real-
time message production by the sender (Garcia & Jacobs, 1999). When a new message
arrives, a push notification will pop up and prompts users to engage in communication
either instantaneously or with a short time lag. In other words, whether and when to
participate in the communication is up to the message receiver after they get notified
about message arrival. This is different from synchronous communication (e.g., phone
calls, video chats), which requires the transmitter and receiver to be present at the same
time and/or space at a mutually agreed schedule. There is no response time delay in
synchronous communication because it happens in real time, unlike MIM quasi-syn-
chronous communication where there is often some short delay. MIM is different from
asynchronous communication (e.g., emails, forum discussions) because most MIM mes-
sages are answered promptly (Andujar, 2019) within 60 s (as in the case of WhatsApp)
(Rosenfeld et al., 2018), whereas the average response time of asynchronous communi-
cation is markedly longer—24 h for email (Chang et al., 2016) and 24 to 48 h for online
discussion forums (Jeong & Frazier, 2008). Figure  1 illustrates the differences between
asynchronous, synchronous, and quasi-synchronous communication with examples.
MIM is both a mobile and quasi-synchronous communication tool. MIM is devel-
oped specifically for mobile devices and not for computers, which means users can carry
WhatsApp or WeChat easily in their pocket (Unuth, 2020). The mobility of MIM tools
and the quasi-synchronicity of MIM communication are two interwoven features and
are not separable from each other. The quasi-synchronous communication of MIM
is attributed to the portability and mobility of mobile devices. Thus, the word “quasi-
synchronicity” has the connotation that easy accessibility of a mobile device is available
in the communicative process. To explain, the message notification of a mobile phone
alerts a receiver whenever a new WhatsApp or WeChat message arrives. The receiver
can then choose to join the conversation anytime and anywhere he or she prefers.
In addition to its unprecedented popular social use, MIM demonstrates the potential
to support teaching and learning. Like other computer-mediated communicative (CMC)
channels, MIM shatters the temporal and spatial restrictions of traditional face-to-face
meetings and allows people to stay connected (Kiesler et  al., 1984). Besides, its multi-
functionality and flexibility enable learning by facilitating resource sharing and distant
collaboration (Tang & Hew, 2019; Xue & Churchill, 2019). For example, teachers have

Fig. 1  The differences between asynchronous, synchronous, and quasi-synchronous communication

 Tang and Hew Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2022) 19:3 Page 3 of 22

used MIM to support language practice (e.g., Andujar, 2016), after-class tutorial ser-
vices (e.g., Butgereit, 2007), class-related information delivery (e.g., Chai & Fan, 2016),
and assignment submission (e.g., Dambal et al., 2015). According to a recent literature
review, MIM seemed to be particularly beneficial for developing a social presence in
computer-mediated learning environments, mainly due to the friendly environment
created with multiple integrated lively elements (e.g., visuals, audio, videos, and other
graphical icons), as well as the increased interactivity of the quasi-synchronous commu-
nication (Tang & Hew, 2017). As for its impact on improving student learning outcomes,
most experimental studies reported positive effect, especially when MIM was used to
supplement course content in interactive class activities (e.g., Andujar, 2016; Chai &
Fan, 2016). However, researchers also found that messaging can be obstructive to stu-
dent learning, such as taking a longer time to complete the task or having lower assign-
ments scores (Bowman et al., 2010; Chen & Yan, 2016; Fox et al., 2009). Unstructured
messaging can also negatively influence one’s overall productivity due to the increase of
communicative workload, engagement in multitasking, and frequency of message notifi-
cation interruptions (Rennecker & Godwin, 2003).
Although the use of MIM has significantly increased, MIM has received much less
attention in education, compared with other popular social tools such as Facebook and
Twitter (Pimmer & Rambe, 2018). Questions remain concerning whether MIM is supe-
rior to other CMC mode (such as asynchronous online discussion [AOD]) in engaging
students. In this study, we referred to the media synchronicity theory and examined the
influence of MIM on learning through the lens of engagement, which is linked to desired
learning behaviors and outcomes (Finn & Zimmer, 2012; Xu et al., 2020). We adopted a
quasi-experimental research design to compare the influences of using MIM and AOD
on student behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. The central research ques-
tion is: How effective is the impact of MIM-supported educational activities on student
online engagement as compared to AOD?
This study offers the following original contributions. First, we empirically compare
the extent to which MIM influences student online engagement with the commonly
used AOD mode. Understanding which communication mode can better promote stu-
dent online engagement is particularly important during the current health crisis. Since
the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, many institutions have little choice but to
use online education for remote teaching and learning. Yet despite the widespread use
of online education, the lack of student online engagement remains a problem (Farrell
& Brunton, 2020). This study offers timely empirical evidence to help teachers choose
the appropriate communication mode to foster student online engagement. Second,
we investigate student engagement as a multi-dimensional construct, uncovering the
nuances in how different communication modes influence student engagement behavio-
rally, emotionally, and cognitively. Third, we provide pedagogical suggestions to promote
student engagement and learning in MIM-supported educational activities in CMC
contexts.
In the following sections, we first review related literature on media synchronic-
ity theory, the multidimensional nature of engagement, as well as empirical studies
of the educational use of MIM. We proceed to describe the research design and pre-
sent the comparative results of the behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement of
Tang and Hew Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2022) 19:3 Page 4 of 22

participants from the two groups. We discuss the results in relation to media synchro-
nicity and student motivation and conclude with a set of instructional design sugges-
tions and directions for future research.

Literature review
In this section, we review related literature on the media synchronicity theory, the mul-
tiple dimensions of engagement, as well as previous studies on the educational use of
MIM to support student learning.

Media synchronicity theory

Media Synchronicity Theory (MST) discusses the capability of media to support syn-
chronicity, which is defined as “a state in which individuals are working together at the
same time with a common focus” (Dennis et al., 2008, p. 581). According to MST, one
medium is no better than another; communication performance can be improved when
the synchronicity of media can match the synchronicity required to complete the task.
Dennis et al. (2008) defined two fundamental processes of all communication: convey-
ance and convergence. Conveyance refers to the transmission of new information to cre-
ate new mental models. Convergence is the process of reaching mutual understanding
based on sharing “known” knowledge (Dennis et  al., 2008). Since conveyance involves
more cognitive processing of new information, it typically requires longer periods of
time characterized by a medium with low synchronicity. In contrast, because conver-
gence typically requires rapid transmission of small amounts of known information, it
benefits from a medium that supports high synchronicity (Dennis et al., 2008). In real-
life scenarios, to improve the performance of a communicative task, we need to consider
the task nature, the media features, and the maturity of grouping, in order to make stra-
tegic choices of selecting and combining multiple media types (Dennis et al., 2008).

Engagement as a multi‑dimensional construct

Students engagement happens when they are motivated to devote time and efforts to the
learning process (Wigfield et al., 2006). Engagement is the visible manifestation of moti-
vation (Skinner et al., 2009). “Engagement is defined by an observable, action-oriented
subtype (behavioral) and two internal ones (cognitive and emotional) but then is differ-
entiated from motivation as engagement being action (observable behavior), motivation
as intent (internal)” (Reschly & Christenson, 2012, p. 14). Engagement is multi-dimen-
sional (Appleton et al., 2008; Finn & Zimmer, 2012). Fredricks et al. (2004) proposed a
three-construct typology consisting of behavioral engagement, emotional engagement,
and cognitive engagement (see Fig. 2, with two examples of indicative behaviors for each
dimension).
This typology is well grounded in the literature and has been widely cited across
diverse disciplines (e.g., Balfanz et al., 2007; Brodie et al., 2011; Hidi & Renninger, 2006).
Behavioral engagement refers to participation in academic, social, or extracurricular
activities (Fredricks et  al., 2004). Student participation in an online discussion can be
evaluated by various factors, such as the number and type of discussion posts (Hew
& Cheung, 2003). Emotional engagement refers to students’ affective reactions toward
interactions with teachers, peers, and the learning environment (Fredricks et al., 2004).
 Tang and Hew Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2022) 19:3 Page 5 of 22

Fig. 2  Three dimensions of engagement and examples of indicators for each dimension

Emotional engagement is typically measured by self-reported data, such as question-

naire surveys and interviews. Cognitive engagement comprises thinking and understand-
ing of the topic, as reflected by students’ task investment in terms of being strategic or
self-regulating (Fredricks et  al., 2004). There is a qualitative distinction between low-
level and high-level cognitive engagement, observable from surface-level to deep-level
strategy use (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Cognitive engagement can be assessed either
subjectively with self-reported questionnaire surveys or objectively with test scores and
choices of task difficulty levels (Hew et al., 2016; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). It is also
common to perform content analysis to examine cognitive engagement in online inter-
actions (e.g., Wang et al., 2014; Xie & Ke, 2011; Zhu, 2006).

Education use of MIM

Previous studies have exploited the communicative functions of MIM and used it in
dialogic activities. For example, Allagui (2014) asked students to accomplish struc-
tured conversation tasks (e.g., a role play) in WhatsApp groups to learn English. Over
80% of the students liked MIM and expressed willingness to continue using it. Similarly,
Lai (2016) asked 45 seventh graders to use WhatsApp groups to practice English for
three months and found a significant correlation between students’ chat frequency and
vocabulary gain. Instructors also used MIM to deliver multi-modal messages or to pro-
vide out-of-class assistance in a timely manner. For example, Chai and Fan (2016) used
WeChat to deliver texts, images, and videos about course content to support pre-class
content delivery in a flipped classroom. Zhang and Xue (2015) allowed students to use
WeChat and ask for help about their assignments or exam preparation. Aside from these
two “transmission” and “helpline” functions, previous studies also used MIM to support
other educational activities, such as to collaboratively complete a writing piece, to post
a solution to an assignment, or to record students’ learning reflections (Tang & Hew,
2017). More recently, Xu et al. (2020) examined the effects of the teacher role on learner
engagement in WeChat-based discussion.
MIM promotes a sense of collaboration among students (Robinson et  al., 2015). Its
quasi-synchronicity allows students to respond quickly, leading to an increased level
of interactivity and the development of a social presence (Tu & McIsaac, 2002). Social
presence refers to the ability of students “to project themselves socially and emotionally
Tang and Hew Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2022) 19:3 Page 6 of 22

as real people” in mediated environment (Garrison et al., 1999, p. 94). It can influence
student learning in the aspects of motivation, activity participation, course satisfaction,
perceived learning, and critical thinking (Richardson et  al., 2017). Furthermore, the
availability of non-verbal cues, such as emoticons, emojis, and stickers, can convey emo-
tions in student interactions (Tang & Hew, 2019) and make online conversations livelier
and friendlier (Wang et al., 2016). Recently, Tang and Hew (2020) compared the levels of
social presence between students using MIM and those using AOD and found that MIM
is particularly suited to promoting expressions of emotions (affective social presence),
agreement (interactive social presence), as well as phatics and support (cohesive social
presence). However, this study focused solely on the social aspect of MIM use but did
not examine its influence on other dimensions of students’ learning.
The effect of using MIM on cognitive engagement is not conclusive, due to the lim-
ited number of comparative studies and insufficient methodological rigor in experi-
mental studies. For instance, Andujar (2016) and Chai and Fan (2016) reported positive
effects of MIM use compared with the use of other tools or no treatment, while Kim
et al. (2014) and Lai (2016) reported either no effect or adverse effects. A recent study by
Sun et al. (2018) compared interaction types, social network patterns, and participants’
attitudes between using an online discussion forum and an MIM app. The results show
students were more involved in social interactions on MIM but were more involved in
knowledge construction on the online forum (Sun et al., 2018). While MIM led to more
interactions, students preferred using the online forum for collaborative learning (Sun
et al., 2018). This study adopted a broad categorization of interaction types (social inter-
action vs. knowledge construction) and did not evaluate specific levels of thinking or
knowledge construction. Moreover, it only reported descriptive statistical results but no
measurable learning outcomes.
The educational use of MIM also has challenges. Pimmer and Rambe (2018) identified
three interdependent pairs of affordances and constraints in temporal, relationship, and
intellectual dimensions. To explain, its immediacy may increase interactivity but may
pressure users to respond quickly. Ubiquitous interaction may increase perceived inti-
macy but may decrease the sense of privacy. Informal language use may be considered
friendly but may not be always appropriate in formal educational contexts. The casual
environment may increase the level of playfulness and participation but may distract
students from task-oriented conversations (Pimmer & Rambe, 2018). Other challenges
include technical problems such as insufficient smartphone ownership, unstable Inter-
net connectivity, and small cellphone keyboards and screens (e.g., Allagui, 2014; Dambal
et al., 2015).
We identified three major gaps regarding student engagement and the educational use
of MIM. First, there is a lack of empirical study that examined the influence of MIM-
supported activities on student engagement. Second, some engagement indicators, such
as student participation and affective responses, have been sporadically presented by
previous studies. However, without a comprehensive examination of engagement as a
multi-dimensional construct, our understanding of the educational potential of MIM
remains limited. Third, very few studies have compared the effectiveness of using MIM
with other communication mode in influencing student learning. This study addresses
these gaps by comparing the impacts of using MIM and using AOD in educational
 Tang and Hew Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2022) 19:3 Page 7 of 22

activities on student engagement. In the next section, we present more details of the
research design.

Method
We conducted a quasi-experimental research involving a historical cohort control group.
When random assignment of participants is not possible for practical and ethical rea-
sons in educational research, a quasi-experimental study allows researchers to conduct
comparative study in its natural setting (Campbell & Stanley, 1966). In addition, use of
a historical cohort control group design provides a viable option for conducting quasi-
experiments in outcome evaluation, with minimal resource requirements and disruption
to school routines (Walser, 2014). To manage the comparability of treatment and control
conditions, in this study, we chose two classes taught by the same instructor with identi-
cal syllabi, course materials, and class activities in two consecutive semesters. Students
in the experimental group (hereinafter: MIM group) used WeChat for course-related
discussion, while those in the control group (hereinafter: AOD group) used the asyn-
chronous Moodle forum for the same activities. Moodle is the learning management
system used on the university campus.
This study was conducted in an ecologically valid real classroom setting where
WeChat and Moodle were adopted in natural educational practices, instead of a labora-
tory setting where strict controls of experiment conditions to investigate the different
influences of mobile versus non-mobile, and synchronous versus asynchronous commu-
nication were imposed. In this study, we did not impose any restrictions on how partici-
pants should use MIM or AOD services. All students in the MIM group naturally used
the MIM service via the mobile app on their mobile phones while all students from the
AOD group naturally used Moodle forum via their personal computers. This allowed
us to better understand what was going on in real classrooms and derive insights from
authentic use cases. Moreover, although we chose these two tools for this study, our
focus was not to merely compare these tools, but to evaluate the impacts of different
modes (quasi-synchronous communication and mobility presented by MIM versus
asynchronous communication and non-mobility represented by Moodle forum) on stu-
dent engagement. MIM and AOD forum are both widely adopted to support student
learning activities. Understanding which communication mode can better promote stu-
dent online engagement is particularly important during the current widespread use of
online learning. Our goal was to empirically investigate which one of the communicative
modes can better support student engagement in real classroom settings.
To further improve the validity of comparison, since students with a better under-
standing of the content knowledge typically participate more actively (Tinto, 1987), we
controlled the influence of students’ initial content knowledge by administering a pre-
class assessment on the main knowledge unit covered in this course. 26 students from
the MIM group and 28 from the AOD group completed the quiz. Since the data signifi-
cantly deviated from a normal distribution, we compared the difference with a Mann–
Whitney U-test. The results showed no significant difference (U = 337.5, p = 0.63) in
student prior knowledge between the two groups (MIM group: M = 1.19, SD = 1.44;
AOD group: M = 1.21, SD = 1.13) (See Table 1).
Tang and Hew Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2022) 19:3 Page 8 of 22

Table 1  Comparison of pre-class quiz scores between the two groups

Group Number of M (SD) Mann–Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
participants

MIM 26 1.19 (1.44) 337.5 688.5 − 0.48 0.63

AOD 28 1.21 (1.13)

Research context
Participants were enrolled in an educational course at a large university in Hong Kong
in the 2016–2017 school year. The class met once a week, three hours each week, and
for eight weeks in total. The instructor taught the course in a flipped approach, by
disseminating instructional videos before each class and guiding students to apply
what they had learned in class (see Fig. 3 for a visual illustration of the learning pro-
cess). The first four weeks covered content knowledge, and the last four weeks were
for student-led group presentations. In the first four weeks, students completed six
online discussion tasks (see Table  2) on the designated platforms. The MIM group
was enrolled in 2016 Fall, involving 26 students (23 females and three males). All the
students were from mainland China or Hong Kong. The AOD group was enrolled in
2017 Spring, involving 29 students (21 females and eight males). One student was
from Thailand, and the others were from mainland China or Hong Kong.
Students understood that their participation in the discussion was completely vol-
untary and would not be counted toward their grades. Students were encouraged to
provide feedback to others’ comments, and they were allowed to use the discussion
platform in any way that might help them learn with no prescribed regulations. For
example, they could ask assignment-related questions or share internship informa-
tion. The instructor did not participate unless students specifically sought his help.

Fig. 3  The learning activities and process of a flipped learning approach adopted in this study

Table 2  Session topics of the first four weeks and six discussion tasks
Week Session topic Discussion task

1 Adult learners Post-class: Introduce one adult class you taught before or wish to teach
2 Andragogy Pre-class: Watch a video and propose two solutions to address the situation
Post-class: Discuss one topic from last class with which you feel most connected
3 Motivation Pre-class: Talk about possible methods of positive reinforcement, negative
reinforcement, and punishment
Post-class: Read the article and post one concept you find most interesting
4 Online learning Pre-class: What are three most important questions to consider about designing
an online course for adults? Why?
 Tang and Hew Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2022) 19:3 Page 9 of 22

Data collection and analysis

Figure  4 summarizes the ways in which we measured how behavioral, emotional, and
cognitive engagement happened in the learning process, and how we collected the data.
To measure behavioral engagement, we collected students’ online interaction records
after the course ended, and analyzed the data using a content analysis method (Holsti,
1969). Specifically, we counted the number of participants and their posts, as well as cal-
culated the number of posts per individual and discussion task. We categorized postings
as on-task and off-task messages. On-task messages were posts that directly contributed
to the discussion topics, while off-task messages were not directly related to the top-
ics. On-task messages were further grouped into two types: task completion (messages
intended to complete the task) and interaction (messages as responses). One message
could contain components of both task completion and interaction.
To compare emotional engagement, we interviewed 20 students, 10 from each group, to
understand their affective responses toward the course content, participation, resources,
and interaction. These interviews were semi-structured, wherein we asked elaboration
and clarification questions as needed to gain more insight. Each interview lasted about
30 min. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and double-checked
for accuracy. We also administered a Likert-style survey anonymously via Google Forms
upon the course completion. The 15-item survey was adapted from Bailey (2002) to
measure student attitude towards peer interaction, student–instructor interaction, and
course satisfaction. We compared students’ responses with the Mann–Whitney U-test,
as the data significantly deviated from a normal distribution. Significance was accepted
at the level of 0.05.
The aforementioned interviews also helped identify students’ learning strategies and
perceived learning outcomes, as indicators of cognitive engagement. We analyzed the
interview data with a grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to allow cat-
egories to emerge from the data. This involved generating a series of codes and succes-
sively refining them through an iterative process, until no more new codes could be
identified.

Fig. 4  The measurements and data sources of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement
Tang and Hew Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2022) 19:3 Page 10 of 22

In addition to the interview data, we adopted Wang et al. (2014) framework of cogni-
tive engagement in connected learning contexts and analyzed on-task messages as an
externalization of learning-related thought. The unit of analysis was the thematic unit
because our focus was the “communication of meaning” (Merriam, 1998). One message
might contain several units of analysis. The framework includes four levels (from low to
high) of cognitive engagement:

1) Operation. Learners operate technologies to help with their personal learning and
mainly interact with the interface to facilitate idea expression. This stage does not
involve interaction with other participants.
2) Wayfinding. Learners identify resources and opportunities contributed by others in
the network. Learners interact with the content and other learners to aggregate more
information to enhance their understanding.
3) Sense-making. Learners bring together different information and critically evaluate
and negotiate a viewpoint.
4) Innovation. Learners construct new understanding and artifacts, such as changes to
one’s personal opinions or behaviors and new suggestions or resources to extend the
existing discussion.

Guided by this framework, we adopted the constant comparison method (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985) to identify specific indicators of cognitive engagement. Ten codes emerged
inductively from the data corpus. The operationalization of each code was reviewed and
refined iteratively. To increase the consistency of the analysis, we identified exemplary
posts to illustrate each code. The final codebook is shown in Table 3. Twenty percent of
the qualitative data were randomly selected and analyzed by two independent research-
ers to ascertain coding reliability, which yielded an agreement rate of 92%. All disagree-
ment was resolved through discussion.

Results
Behavioral engagement
Table 4 summarizes the differences in behavioral engagement of the two groups.
The MIM group produced more messages than the AOD group, including more on-
task and interactive messages, while the AOD group wrote longer messages than MIM
students. All MIM students participated in the out-of-class discussions, producing 473
messages with 22,489 words. A total of 321 messages were on-task, among which 186
(57.9%) were interactive. Each student produced 865 words, and each message contained
an average of 47.5 words. On the other hand, 28 of the 29 students from the AOD group
participated in the tasks, producing 169 messages with 17,289 words. All the messages
were on-task, and 47 (27.8%) were interactive. The average number of words per student
was 617.5 and per message was 102. We further analyzed the following aspects of par-
ticipation and interaction.

Participation rate
Measured by dividing the number of students who participated by the total number of
students enrolled. The average participation rate of the MIM group across all six tasks
 Tang and Hew Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2022) 19:3 Page 11 of 22

Table 3  Analytical framework of cognitive engagement

Code Definition Example

Operation
 Sharing information Providing an opinion or information “I will prepare more videos to share
with the class when things get
boring.”
 Seeking information Proposing of an original question “The speaker only shared the first
two points. Does anyone know the
last three points?”
Wayfinding
 Commenting without elabora- Commenting on others’ ideas “Your sharing is very interesting!”
tion without elaboration
 Requesting elaboration Requesting for more information or “I am wondering if there [are] any
inviting discussion good examples to teach different
levels of students.”
 Providing elaboration Adding explanation or justification (After proposing a solution). “If adults
of one’s own ideas are feeling sleepy in class, they must
be really tired.”
 Summarizing Summarizing knowledge with little “I agree with my previous classmates’
evaluation ideas, such as instant Q&A from A;
separate tasks from B, and a change
in topics from C.”
Sense-making
 Analyzing Analyzing essential features, com- “The discrepancy between staff
parison, and reasons needs and training requests was a
key factor!”
 Evaluating Stating a stance with justification “Your suggestion is inspiring! Giving
students more opportunities to talk
could change passive listening into
active participation!”
Innovation
 Reflecting Reflecting on one’s prior experience “A big mistake I made was that I
or learning outcomes started with pronunciation and tried
to teach from A to Z.”
 Creating Creating new ideas by making sug- “You may initiate e-learning in a less
gestions, extending understanding, formal setting such as a tutorial class
and introducing new points or and give teachers detailed examples
resources of how e-learning works.”

Table 4  Differences in behavioral engagement

Measurements MIM AOD

Number of students enrolled 26 29

 Number of students who participated in discussions 26 28
Number of messages 473 169
 On-task messages 321 169
 Interaction messages 186 47
Number of words in total 22,489 17,289
Participation rate 88.5% 69.5%
Task completion rate 81.4% 69.5%
Interaction rate 51.7% 23.1%

was 88.5% and that of the AOD group was 69.5%. The MIM group demonstrated a
higher participation rate.
Tang and Hew Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2022) 19:3 Page 12 of 22

Task completion rate

Measured by dividing the number of students who completed the tasks by the total
number of students enrolled. In the MIM group, the average number of students who
completed the tasks was 21.2, with a completion rate of 81.4%. In the AOD group, the
average number of students who completed the tasks was 20.2, with a completion rate of
69.5%. The MIM students demonstrated a higher task completion rate.

Interaction rate
Measured by dividing the number of interaction posts by the total number of posts. The
MIM group’s interaction rate reached 51.68%, while the AOD group’s interaction rate
was 23.13%. In the AOD group, two tasks did not have any interactive posts. The MIM
students demonstrated a higher interaction rate.

Emotional engagement
According to the interviews, both MIM and AOD helped students create a sense of
group and connectivity. Both technologies improved an awareness of peer presence.
However, while most MIM interviewees explicitly acknowledged the positive impact of
using WeChat on their feelings, hardly any AOD interviewees recognized the effect of
the forum on their emotional engagement. Students mentioned the following reasons
why they felt WeChat enhanced their emotional engagement.

Instructor being approachable

Students appreciated the instructor’s attempt to use this social tool in an academic con-
text. According to one interviewee, “It shows he is willing to know us and mingle with
us. I do not know any other teachers who are using WeChat. Maybe they do, but they
don’t share it with us.”

Inclusive, relaxing, and interactive

Students frequently used inclusive pronouns, such as “we, us, our” to address the group,
which gave them a sense of belonging. In addition, the message notifications prompted
them to get engaged and contributed to an interactive learning environment. One stu-
dent noted, “You know others are participating, and you want to be a part of it too. It is
not like Moodle, where you post your answer and leave. I seldom read what others say,
and I don’t think others care that much about what I say.”

Easy emotional expression

The convenient use of emojis and stickers helped with emotional expression and added
some fun to the conversation. One student said, “If someone knows how to use stickers,
they are more likely to be an easygoing and interesting person. I would want to know
them and make friends with them.”

Social interaction
The social nature of WeChat increased a sense of intimacy. Students would use social
phatics, such as greetings or holiday wishes, to improve the level of positivity and
 Tang and Hew Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2022) 19:3 Page 13 of 22

friendliness. Students were also connected with the social sharing function, which
allowed them to know their classmates as unique individuals outside of the classroom.
One student commented, “You get to know them better through what they share and
how they describe their posts.”
However, some students still preferred limiting the use of MIM to social conversa-
tions. They felt awkward to intentionally use MIM for academic posts. Further, stu-
dents sometimes thought the notifications pushed by MIM were distracting, even
annoying. Messages could also be obstructive to one’s private life. Students also
disliked the pressure to participate only because their classmates were active, even
though the discussions were voluntary. One student said, “Sometimes I forced myself
to comment, because others would have a better impression of me, including the
teacher.”
On the other hand, most AOD interviewees showed a neutral attitude toward the
impact of using forum on their affective involvement. Their responses were com-
paratively succinct, such as “I could not say it had a strong influence,” or “It was not
obvious.” Two main uninviting features of Moodle forum were (1) the lack of interac-
tion, and (2) the pressure of being formal. Most students would just post their own
answers but did not bother to comment on others’ postings. When they wrote their
own responses, students felt the pressure to provide in-depth responses. One student
said, “I always wrote an essay in a Word document, double-checked the grammar, and
read it several times before posting it. I had to make sure that everything was up to
academic expectations.”
Regarding the survey results, 20 MIM students and 27 AOD students responded
on their attitudes towards the course interaction and satisfaction. The score of each
construct was obtained by summing the scores of each item in that construct, and the
overall score was obtained by adding the scores of all constructs. The results showed
no significant difference in any surveyed aspects (see Table 5).

Table 5  Survey results of course interaction and satisfaction and comparison between two groups
Group M (SD) Mdn Mean rank Min Max Statistical test results
Mann–Whitney Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig.
U (2-tailed)

Students’ peer interaction

 MIM 20.9 (4.3) 21.5 22.0 7.0 25.0 229.500 439.500 − 0.890 0.374
 AOD 22.0 (3.5) 22.0 25.5 10.0 25.0
Student–teacher interaction
 MIM 20.9 (4.3) 21.0 20.6 6.0 25.0 201.500 411.500 − 1.502 0.133
 AOD 22.1 (3.5) 22.0 26.5 10.0 25.0
Course satisfaction
 MIM 21.0 (4.0) 21.0 20.7 8.0 25.0 201.000 411.000 − 1.518 0.129
 AOD 22.3 (3.5) 23.0 26.6 10.0 25.0
Overall evaluation
 MIM 62.8 (11.8) 64.0 20.6 21.00 75.0 202.500 412.500 − 1.463 0.143
 AOD 66.4 (10.2) 69.0 26.5 30.00 75.0
Tang and Hew Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2022) 19:3 Page 14 of 22

Cognitive engagement
We measured cognitive engagement based on students’ online interaction records and
interviews about their learning strategies and perceived learning outcomes. Table  6
summarizes the coding results of students’ interaction records.
Both technologies supported student cognitive engagement in a variety of ways. A
stark difference was in the wayfinding dimension. MIM students were most involved
in wayfinding interaction, while the AOD students showed the least involvement in
this category. This indicates MIM was more facilitative to interaction, as wayfinding
indicates bidirectional communication. Regarding specific indicators, both groups
were more frequently engaged in sharing information, although the AOD group dem-
onstrated a higher percentage. Between groups, MIM students demonstrated higher
frequencies of all individual indicators, indicating that more cognitively engaging
communication was present in the MIM group. Particularly, MIM students demon-
strated more instances of the highest level of cognitive engagement indicator “creat-
ing” than their AOD peers (32 vs. 8).
According to the interviews, students in the MIM group attributed their improved
cognitive engagement to increased interactivity, class preparation, just-in-time learn-
ing opportunities, connected learning resources, and succinct language use.

Learning facilitated by increased interactivity

The mobility and synchronicity of MIM increased the level of interactivity and
allowed students to seize just-in-time learning opportunities. They were able to co-
produce knowledge in peer interactions, which prompted them to think more deeply
about the discussion topics. One student said, “I would have more opportunities
to ask questions and receive answers from my classmates. Reading my classmates’
answers also helped me learn.”

Table 6  Differences in cognitive engagement reflected in students’ posts

Dimension Code MIM AOD

Operation Sharing information 83 (24%) 76 (41%)

Seeking information 3 (1%) 0
Subtotal 86 (25%) 76 (41%)
Wayfinding Commenting without elaboration 47 (13%) 3 (2%)
Requesting elaboration 20 (6%) 9 (5%)
Providing elaboration 32 (9%) 3 (2%)
Summarizing 16 (5%) 6 (3%)
Subtotal 115 (33%) 21 (12%)
Sense-making Analyzing 19 (5%) 5 (3%)
Evaluating 35 (10%) 27 (15%)
Subtotal 54 (15%) 32 (18%)
Innovation Reflecting 65 (18%) 47 (26%)
Creating 32 (9%) 8 (4%)
Subtotal 97 (27%) 55 (30%)
Total 352 (100%) 184 (100%)
 Tang and Hew Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2022) 19:3 Page 15 of 22

Better class preparation

Students actively utilized the MIM group to prepare for the course. “We basically
explored the course content together before class. Unsolved questions could then be
addressed by the instructor in class.”

Connected learning resources

The MIM group established an easy conversation channel, whereby they could navigate
learning resources and have direct contact with their classmates to ask for clarification
and elaboration. “If I am interested in a particular idea and would love to have more dis-
cussions, I could just @ the sender and ask them directly. It is convenient and efficient.”
However, some students from the MIM group complained about the size of keyboard
and screen, which limited them to fully elaborate on ideas. Another negative factor was
the chronological display of messages, which made group conversations difficult to fol-
low. Students found it hard to engage in in-depth discussions if they were always catch-
ing up on the most recent messages. “If you are not following the interactions all the
time, there is no easy way to read all the messages.”
As for AOD, students appreciated using it for academic discussions, mainly due to the
following factors.

Extended processing time

Students took advantage of the asynchronous feature of the online forum to really
think about their ideas and carefully put them into words. Extra processing time helped
develop higher-order thinking, as one student said, “I can take my time to think carefully
about what I want to say and how to support my ideas. I might spend several days on the
draft.”

Searching while writing
All students used the online forum on their personal computers. The ease of searching
and writing at the same time was one outstanding affordance of using Moodle forum.
This feature was particularly facilitative of idea development, especially as academic
posting tended to be complex and often required searching for extra information.

Easy editing and revision

It was easy to refine the content and insert more information on the forum. This allows
for more critical thinking and language processing. “I can revise my posting when I have
new ideas or supporting materials. It’s nice that Moodle allows editing.”

Organized threaded format

The threaded format of forum posts allowed students to organize relevant posts and eas-
ily search for content. Students considered this feature helpful for information retrieval
and idea development.
What students disliked about AOD are its low interactivity and long formal responses.
Like many other learning management systems, Moodle forum was not mobile-friendly,
as it required students to take multiple steps to login, navigate to the right course, find
the discussion board and the right topic, and then write their responses. One student
Tang and Hew Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2022) 19:3 Page 16 of 22

said, “It is hard to use. That’s why I did not interact much. It was a headache to find
the right place.” Additionally, students did not enjoy reading long posts or providing
responses to such posts. The low interactivity and difficulty of use prevented students
from actively participating in discussion tasks and thus limited the development of high-
level cognitive engagement.

Discussion and implications
Revisiting the major findings
In this study, we compared the engagement levels of two groups of students using MIM
and AOD to conduct same course-related discussions in a flipped learning setting.
Behaviorally, MIM seems to have contributed to a higher level of engagement than AOD
in terms of the total number of posts, the total number of words and of each student, the
participation rate, the task completion rate, and the interaction rate. However, the mes-
sages tended to be longer on the forum than those in the MIM group, as shown by the
number of words per message.
Emotionally, although the survey results showed no significant differences in stu-
dent peer interaction, teacher–student interaction, or course satisfaction between the
two groups, the interview results revealed more nuance. MIM established a friendly
and interactive environment, which helped develop positive interpersonal relationships
among participants. In contrast, students found little impact of AOD communication on
their affective feelings toward the course and other students. On the negative side, some
students disliked using WeChat for academic purposes, and some from the AOD group
did not like the lack of interaction and lengthy essay-like responses on Moodle forum.
Cognitively, both technologies supported student cognitive engagement. AOD seemed
more facilitative of individual sharing, while MIM contributed to a higher level of inter-
active idea exchange. The MIM group was also involved in more “creating” activities.
Based on the interview results, students identified multiple facilitative and inhibitive fea-
tures of both technologies. The MIM students enjoyed the increased interactivity, better
class preparation, just-in-time learning opportunities, connected learning resources, and
succinct language use, but they were also bothered by the device limitations and infor-
mation disorganization. In the AOD group, students liked the structured discussion,
extended processing time, and the ease of multi-tasking and editing, but they did not
enjoy reading or responding to lengthy posts, which limited their desire for interaction.
The mobility, quasi-synchronicity, and casualness of MIM reduced students’ anxiety
about being perfect and promote spontaneous discussion (Rambe & Bere, 2013). Studies
have suggested that the increased interactivity would lead to a higher level of intimacy
(Tu & McIsaac, 2002), which is a key factor of student affective feelings toward and sat-
isfaction with completely online learning (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). However, our
survey results revealed no significant difference in the emotional engagement between
the two groups, although the MIM group demonstrated a higher level of interactivity.
This might be due to the course nature, which in this study operated in a blended for-
mat. Therefore, the results may be different from completely online courses examined in
previous studies. This course prioritized face-to-face meetings and included online dis-
cussions as supplementary and voluntary activities. As a result, online interaction might
have less impact on student affective engagement than face-to-face meetings. Because
 Tang and Hew Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2022) 19:3 Page 17 of 22

both groups took the course with the same instructor and the same activities, their eval-
uation of the course might be very similar.
The differences in cognitive engagement presented a complex picture. Previous studies
found that threaded AODs might better support higher-order thinking compared with
chronologically organized discussions in instant messages (Kim et al., 2014; Sun et al.,
2018). Our results suggested otherwise. One explanation of this incongruity may be that
in both Kim et al. (2014) and Sun et al. (2018), the instructors assigned discussion activi-
ties as mandatory tasks. These activities were designed purposefully as collaborative
projects, in which students had to either collaboratively find solutions to an ill-struc-
tured problem or co-develop a lesson plan based on peer feedback. According to the
media synchronicity theory, when a large amount of information is to be exchanged in
the communication, media that afford low synchronicity (AOD in this case) may facili-
tate better communication performance, as it allows more time to read, understand, and
process information transmitted (Dennis et al., 2008). However, in our study, participat-
ing in the discussions was voluntary, and collaboration was not necessary. When stu-
dents were given the choice to participate, MIM seemed to have afforded higher levels
of interaction and more opportunities to share ideas. Such frequent “give and take” is
favorably supported by a medium that supports high synchronicity (in this case, MIM)
(Dennis et al., 2008). The increased level of interaction may have contributed to higher
cognitive engagement, especially more “creating” indicators. The creation of new ideas
or artifacts does not occur in an individual but through interaction between the individ-
ual and the social–cultural context (Csikszentmihályi, 1990). Pi et al. (2019) also found if
students were exposed to a high rate of peers’ original ideas and paid more attention to
those ideas, they would be more creative. Therefore, using MIM to boost students’ inter-
action might be a useful strategy for improving creative thinking.

Instructional design suggestions

According to the media synchronicity theory, no medium is better than the other. Com-
municators should choose appropriate media based on the task requirements, the media
features, and the maturity of grouping (Dennis et al., 2008). Based on our observation
and analysis, we provide the following suggestions for instructors who wish to incorpo-
rate MIM or AOD to improve student engagement and learning. These suggestions aim
to utilize the affordances of MIM or AOD and to address their challenges.

Set clear goals for using technologies for learning

Different communicative modes and tools are suitable to serve different learning pur-
poses. To address students’ complaints over the confusion between casual and academic
interactions, instructors should clearly communicate the purposes and expectations
of using MIM or AOD for communication and learning activities. Instructor can also
encourage students to design and implement MIM-supported learning activities them-
selves. Giving students the freedom of choice will enhance their sense of autonomy,
leading to higher levels of behavioral and emotional engagement. Our study also shows
that clear communication of the expectations will help students to be more intentionally
focused of academic conversations.
Tang and Hew Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2022) 19:3 Page 18 of 22

Start with the whole‑class MIM group first, but reconsider group size in discussion activities
The MIM group helps students to stay connected, assist one another with content learning,
and exchange ideas to facilitate higher-level thinking. It is therefore beneficial to have a group
to improve relatedness and competence. However, as indicated by some participants in this
study, too many members in a group will lead to information overload and message disorgani-
zation. We thus suggest starting a whole-class group first to establish a sense of community
but breaking up into smaller groups for discussion activities. For example, students could have
internal discussion within small groups. Each group then selects a representative to summa-
rize and present group ideas to the whole class to further facilitate exchange of thoughts.

Develop schedules for discussion

Instructor can develop a schedule with students to address student concerns about messag-
ing being distractions and invasion of privacy, but still maintain flexibility and connectivity
(Tu et  al., 2014). For example, a discussion schedule can be set between 9 am and 5  pm
each weekday. The schedule should be a collective decision of all participants. In addition,
instructors can remind students to mute their MIM notifications when they do not want to
be disturbed (Tang & Hew, 2019). AOD, on the other hand, due to its asynchronous nature,
does not create any distraction or obtrusive feelings.

Design activities catering to device limitations

Students in this study complained about the low input ability and readability of long mes-
sages on MIM apps. They did not enjoy reading long messages on their cellphone screens
and had difficulty typing long messages with small cellphone keyboards. Therefore, dis-
cussion activities should be designed purposefully with comparatively short answers that
are easy to summarize. A task with multiple questions, or a topic requiring students to
share anecdotal experiences in extensive narration, may be more suitable for AOD-based
communication.

Cultivate a constructive knowledge sharing environment

High level of interaction is beneficial for enhancing both competence and relatedness.
Instructors should actively cultivate a constructive knowledge exchange environment in
MIM-supported interactions. For example, instructors can demonstrate how to provide
constructive comments and build on one another’s ideas. To address information disorgan-
ization of MIM communication, in addition to managing group size, instructors could also
assign student facilitators to summarize the highlights and manage conversations, which
could help students to grasp crucial information and facilitate follow-up interactions. As
for AOD, because of its asynchronous nature and comparatively low interactivity, instruc-
tors could consider providing rewards, incentives, or other positive stimuli to encourage
students to participate in the knowledge co-construction process through interactions, in
addition to their own sharing.

Limitations and future work

There are some limitations of this study which point to an array of possibilities for future
research. First, the study was conducted in a graduate-level education course. These
contextual factors might limit the generalizability of our results to other contexts such
 Tang and Hew Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2022) 19:3 Page 19 of 22

as undergraduate and K-12 settings. Future studies could investigate other disciplinary
and geographical areas and in non-higher educational contexts. Second, the study exam-
ined student use of one technology over one semester (eight weeks). There might be a
novelty effect on the results—the tendency of an initial improvement in student perfor-
mance when a new technology is introduced to the learning environment (Clark, 1983).
Researchers might wish to examine the long-term adoption of MIM and its influence on
student learning and engagement. Third, this study suggests that discussion tasks with
shorter answers could cater to the strengths of mobile devices. However, it is beyond our
scope to investigate what types of activities are most suited to an MIM-based discussion.
Future research could explore the influence of different discussion activities. Fourth, this
study does not demonstrate that how different levels of engagement eventually lead to
qualities of learning outcomes. Further studies should examine the relationship between
student engagement and learning outcomes. Finally, we were unable to isolate the possi-
ble individual influences of mobility and synchronicity on the reported results. To deter-
mine the possible individual influences of mobility and synchronicity, future research
may consider having different experiment conditions while controlling for the confound-
ing variable. For instance, one group may use quasi-synchronous communication (MIM)
via mobile phones versus another group using asynchronous online discussion also via
mobile phones.

Conclusion
Our main motivation for this study is to understand the extent to which MIM, as a
social tool, can facilitate student engagement. We compared the use and effects of MIM
and AOD on students’ behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. Our findings
showed that using MIM could better facilitate interaction and the development of inter-
personal relationships. A learning environment with higher levels of intimacy and inter-
activity can help meet the psychological need for motivation. We also found that when
MIM was used in optional tasks, in which the students could choose whether and how
they want to participate in the discussion, MIM seemed to afford a higher level of cog-
nitive engagement, as shown by more indicators of idea exchange and creativity. MIM
emerges as a promising tool for engaging students in social learning activities and foster-
ing higher-level thinking through interaction. Our findings provide evidence to improve
the instructional design of MIM-supported learning experiences and promote our theo-
retical understanding of student engagement.
Acknowledgements
We thank teachers and students who have made valuable contributions to this study.

Authors’ contributions
YT conceived and designed the study, collected the data, performed the data analysis, drafted the manuscript, and
critically revised the paper. KFH conceived and designed the study and critically revised the paper. Both authors read and
approved the final manuscript.

Funding
The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available under the university IRB guide-
lines. Other materials are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Tang and Hew Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2022) 19:3 Page 20 of 22

Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Received: 26 May 2021 Accepted: 9 November 2021

References
Allagui, B. (2014). Writing through WhatsApp: An evaluation of students’ writing performance. International Journal of
Mobile Learning and Organisation, 8(3–4), 216–231.
Andujar, A. (2019). Evaluating mobile instant messaging for L2 development: A longitudinal investigation. In M. Kruk
(Eds.), Assessing the effectiveness of virtual technologies in foreign and second language instruction (pp. 191–215). IGI
Global. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4018/​978-1-​5225-​7286-2.​ch008
Andujar, A. (2016). Benefits of mobile instant messaging to develop ESL writing. System, 62, 63–76.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and meth-
odological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369–386.
Bailey, K. D. (2002). The effects of learning strategies on student interaction and student satisfaction [doctoral disserta-
tion]. The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from https://​etda.​libra​ries.​psu.​edu/​catal​og/​5922
Balfanz, R., Herzog, L., & Mac Iver, D. J. (2007). Preventing student disengagement and keeping students on the gradua-
tion path in urban middle-grades schools: Early identification and effective interventions. Educational Psychologist,
42(4), 223–235.
Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really multitask? An experimental study of
instant messaging while reading. Computers & Education, 54(4), 927–931.
Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., & Ilić, A. (2011). Customer engagement: Conceptual domain, fundamental proposi-
tions, and implications for research. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 252–271.
Butgereit, L. (2007). Math on MXit: Using MXit as a medium for mathematics education. Paper presented at Meraka INNO-
VATE Conference for Educators, CSIR, Pretoria. Retrieved from https://​resea​rchsp​ace.​csir.​co.​za/​dspace/​handle/​10204/​
1614.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand McNally.
Chai, J. X., & Fan, K.-K. (2016). Mobile inverted constructivism: Education of interaction technology in social media. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(5), 1425–1442.
Chang, C., Hurst, B., & McLean, A. (2016). How fast is fast enough? Education students’ perceptions of email response time
in online courses. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 9(1), 1–11.
Chen, Q., & Yan, Z. (2016). Does multitasking with mobile phones affect learning? A review. Computers in Human Behavior,
54, 34–42.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The domain of creativity. In M. A. Rum & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 190–212).
Sage.
Dambal, A., Nimbal, N., Kalsad, S., Rajashekhar, R., Bhavane, A., Pise, G., Halki, S., & Dhaduti, S. (2015). Perceptions of interns
towards a module for teaching medical ethics using the android smartphone application WhatsApp. Journal of
Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences, 4(82), 14270–14277.
Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication processes: A theory of media synchro-
nicity. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 575–600.
Dhir, A., Kaur, P., & Rajala, R. (2020). Continued use of mobile instant messaging apps: A new perspective on theories of
consumption, flow, and planned behavior. Social Science Computer Review, 38(2), 147–169.
Farrell, O., & Brunton, J. (2020). A balancing act: A window into online student engagement experiences. International
Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, 1–19. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s41239-​020-​00199-x
Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, &
C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97–131). Springer.
Fox, A. B., Rosen, J., & Crawford, M. (2009). Distractions, distractions: Does instant messaging affect college students’
performance on a concurrent reading comprehension task? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(1), 51–53.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence.
Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
Garcia, A. C., & Jacobs, J. B. (1999). The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchro-
nous computer-mediated communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(4), 337–367.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing
in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated
conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26.
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2003). Models to evaluate online learning communities of asynchronous discussion
forums. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(2). Retrieved from https://​ajet.​org.​au/​index.​php/​A JET/​
artic​le/​view/​1714
Hew, K. F., Huang, B., Chu, K. W. S., & Chiu, D. K. (2016). Engaging Asian students through game mechanics: Findings
from two experiment studies. Computers & Education, 92, 221–236.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2),
111–127.
 Tang and Hew Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2022) 19:3 Page 21 of 22

Holsti, R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Addison-Wesley.
Jeong, A., & Frazier, S. (2008). How day of posting affects level of critical discourse in asynchronous discussions and
computer-supported collaborative argument. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 875–887. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1467-​8535.​2007.​00789.x
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication.
American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123–1134.
Kim, H., Lee, M., & Kim, M. (2014). Effects of mobile instant messaging on collaborative learning processes and out-
comes: The case of South Korea. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(2), 31–42.
Lai, A. (2016). Mobile immersion: An experiment using mobile instant messenger to support second-language learn-
ing. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(2), 277–290.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Pew Research Center. (2019, December). Social media and young adults. Retrieved from https://​www.​pewre​search.​
org/​inter​net/​2010/​02/​03/​social-​media-​and-​young-​adults-​3/
Pi, Z., Hong, J., & Hu, W. (2019). Interaction of the originality of peers’ ideas and students’ openness to experience in
predicting creativity in online collaborative groups. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4), 1801–1814.
Pimmer, C., & Rambe, P. (2018). The inherent tensions of “instant education”: A critical review of mobile instant mes-
saging. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(5). Retrieved from http://​www.​irrodl.​
org/​index.​php/​irrodl/​artic​le/​view/​3765
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.
Rambe, P., & Bere, A. (2013). Using mobile instant messaging to leverage learner participation and transform peda-
gogy at a South African university of technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 544–561.
Rennecker, J., & Godwin, L. (2003). Theorizing the unintended consequences of instant messaging for worker produc-
tivity. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Environments, Systems and Organizations, 3(3), 137–168.
Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of
the engagement construct. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student
engagement (pp. 3–19). Springer.
Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learn-
ing in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402–417.
Robinson, L., Behi, O., Corcoran, A., Cowley, V., Cullinane, J., Martin, I., & Tomkinson, D. (2015). Evaluation of WhatsApp
for promoting social presence in a first-year undergraduate radiography problem-based learning group. Journal
of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, 46(3), 280–286.
Rosenfeld, A., Sina, S., Sarne, D., Avidov, O., & Kraus, S. (2018). WhatsApp usage patterns and prediction of demo-
graphic characteristics without access to message content. Demographic Research, 39(22), 647–670.
Skinner, E., Kindermann, T. A., Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (2009). Engagement as an organizational construct in the
dynamics of motivational development. In K. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp.
223–245). Erlbaum.
Statista. (2021). Retrieved Dec 8, 2021 from https://​www.​stati​sta.​com/​stati​stics/​258749/​most-​popul​ar-​global-​mobile-​
messe​nger-​apps/. Accessed 8 Dec 2021.
Sun, Z., Lin, C.-H., Wu, M., Zhou, J., & Luo, L. (2018). A tale of two communication tools: Discussion forum and mobile
instant-messaging apps in collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(2), 248–261.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​bjet.​12571
Tang, Y., & Hew, K. F. (2017). Is mobile instant messaging (MIM) useful in education? Examining its technological,
pedagogical, and social affordances. Educational Research Review, 21, 85–104. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​edurev.​
2017.​05.​001
Tang, Y., & Hew, K. F. (2019). Examining the utility and usability of mobile instant messaging in a graduate-level
course: A usefulness theoretical perspective. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
14742/​ajet.​4571
Tang, Y., & Hew, K. F. (2020). Does mobile instant messaging facilitate social presence in online communication? A two-
stage study of higher education students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1),
15. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s41239-​020-​00188-0
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of college attrition. University of Chicago Press.
Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal
of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150.
Tu, C., McIsaac, M. S., Sujo-Montes, L. E., & Armfield, S. (2014). Building mobile social presence for U-learning. In F. Neto
(Ed.), Technology platform innovations and forthcoming trends in Ubiquitous learning (pp. 77–93). Hershey, PA: IGI
Global. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4018/​978-1-​4666-​4542-4.​ch005.
Unuth, N. (2020). Why whatsapp is so popular? LifeWire. Retrieved Dec 8, 2021 from https://​www.​lifew​ire.​com/​reaso​ns-​
why-​whats​app-​is-​popul​ar-​34263​72.
Walser, T. M. (2014). Quasi-experiments in schools: The case for historical cohort control groups. Practical Assessment,
Research, and Evaluation, 19, Article 6. https://​doi.​org/​10.​7275/​17hj-​1k58
Wang, Y., Fang, W.-C., Han, J., & Chen, N.-S. (2016). Exploring the affordances of WeChat for facilitating teaching, social and
cognitive presence in semi-synchronous language exchange. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​14742/​ajet.​2640
Wang, Z., Chen, L., & Anderson, T. (2014). A framework for interaction and cognitive engagement in connectivist learning
contexts. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(2), 121–141.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R. W., & Davis-Kean, P. (2006). Development of achievement motivation. In N.
Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 933–1002). Wiley.
Xie, K., & Ke, F. (2011). The role of students’ motivation in peer-moderated asynchronous online discussions. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 42(6), 916–930.
Tang and Hew Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2022) 19:3 Page 22 of 22

Xu, B., Chen, N.-S., & Chen, G. (2020). Effects of teacher role on student engagement in WeChat-based online discussion
learning. Computers & Education. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​compe​du.​2020.​103956
Xue, S., & Churchill, D. (2019). A review of empirical studies of affordances and development of a framework for educa-
tional adoption of mobile social media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(5), 1231–1257.
Zhang, Z., & Xue, Y. (2015). An investigation of how Chinese university students use social software for learning purposes.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 70–78.
Zhu, E. (2006). Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instructional
Science, 34(6), 451–480.

Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.