International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12

line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 13, Issue 2 (February 2026), Pages: 49-56

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

An expert-validated model of student engagement in virtual engineering labs

 Author(s): 

 Maryam Al Washahi 1, *, Jaspaljeet Singh 2, Rohaini Binti Ramli 2

 Affiliation(s):

  1General Foundation Program, Sohar University, Sohar, Oman
  2College of Computing and Informatics, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Kajang, Malaysia

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7444-2982

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2026.02.006

 Abstract

This study proposes a theoretically grounded conceptual framework to enhance student engagement in virtual engineering laboratories. The framework is validated through expert review rather than empirical testing. To address the challenges of online and blended learning environments, the model integrates two established theories: the extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM2) and Self-Determination Theory (SDT). TAM2 captures extrinsic motivational factors, including perceived usefulness and ease of use, while SDT focuses on intrinsic psychological needs, particularly autonomy and competence. This paper presents an initial theoretical model that has been validated by experts and is intended to precede future empirical testing with students. Expert validation was conducted using a mixed-methods approach involving eight specialists in engineering education and educational technology. Quantitative evaluation employed the content validity ratio (CVR) and item-level content validity index (I-CVI), while qualitative feedback was analyzed using inductive thematic coding. The results showed strong agreement among experts on key components such as system usability, learner engagement, and feedback processes. However, some conceptual overlap was identified between the gamification and enjoyment constructs, suggesting the need for further clarification. The validated framework provides a foundation for future empirical studies to examine the proposed relationships among its constructs. By linking pedagogical design with digital system features, the framework contributes to a deeper understanding of student motivation and engagement in virtual engineering learning environments.

 © 2026 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Virtual engineering laboratories, Student engagement, Technology acceptance model, Self-determination theory, Expert validation

 Article history

 Received 19 September 2025, Received in revised form 19 January 2026, Accepted 30 January 2026

 Acknowledgment

No Acknowledgment. 

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Research Excellence Centre, Universiti Tenaga Nasional (Reference No. REC/Ethics/2026/002). All participants served as expert evaluators on a fully voluntary basis and provided informed consent prior to participation. The questionnaire did not collect any identifying information, ensuring anonymity and data confidentiality. The study adhered to approved ethical research standards and posed no foreseeable risk to participants.

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Al Washahi M, Singh J, and Ramli RB (2026). An expert-validated model of student engagement in virtual engineering labs. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 13(2): 49-56

  Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

  No Figure 

 Tables

  Table 1  Table 2  Table 3   

----------------------------------------------

 References (26)

  1. Alnagrat AJA, Ahmed KM, Alkhallas MI, Almakhzoom OAI, Idrus SZS, and Ismail RC (2023). Virtual laboratory learning experience in engineering: An extended technology acceptance model (TAM). In the 2023 IEEE 3rd International Maghreb Meeting of the Conference on Sciences and Techniques of Automatic Control and Computer Engineering (MI-STA), IEEE, Benghazi, Libya: 474-479.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MI-STA57575.2023.10169123     [ Google Scholar ]

  2. Alsaleh S, Tepljakov A, Tamre M, and Petlenkov E (2021). Towards artificial intelligence driven immersive environments in virtual reality for industrial applications. In the 2021 44th International Conference on Telecommunications and Signal Processing (TSP), IEEE, Brno, Czech Republic: 340-345.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSP52935.2021.9522676      [ Google Scholar ]

  3. Becker JM, Cheah JH, Gholamzade R, Ringle CM, and Sarstedt M (2023). PLS-SEM's most wanted guidance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35(1): 321-346.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2022-0474     [ Google Scholar ]

  4. Cooksey RW (2020). Descriptive statistics for summarising data. In: Cooksey RW (Ed.), Illustrating statistical procedures: Finding meaning in quantitative data: 61-139. Springer, Singapore, Singapore.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2537-7_5      [ Google Scholar ] PMCid:PMC7221239

  5. Davis FD (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3): 319-340.  https://doi.org/10.2307/249008      [ Google Scholar ]

  6. Elmoazen R, Saqr M, Khalil M, and Wasson B (2023). Learning analytics in virtual laboratories: A systematic literature review of empirical research. Smart Learning Environments, 10: 23.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00244-y      [ Google Scholar ] PMid:40477836 PMCid:PMC9996561

  7. Hair JF Jr, Hult M, Ringle CM, and Sarstedt M (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). 3rd Edition, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA.     [ Google Scholar ]

  8. Hang NT and Hong HT (2025). Factors affecting students' learning motivation based on sustainable development goals: A case study of some universities in Vietnam. Journal of Lifestyle and SDGs Review, 5(1): e04678.  https://doi.org/10.47172/2965-730X.SDGsReview.v5.n01.pe04678      [ Google Scholar ]

  9. Hantoobi S, Wahdan A, Al-Emran M, and Shaalan K (2021). A review of learning analytics studies. In: Al-Emran M and Shaalan K (Eds.), Recent advances in technology acceptance models and theories: 119-134. Springer, Cham, Switzerland.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64987-6_8      [ Google Scholar ]

  10. Kemp A, Palmer E, Strelan P, and Thompson H (2024). Testing a novel extended educational technology acceptance model using student attitudes towards virtual classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(5): 2110-2131.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13440      [ Google Scholar ]

  11. Lawshe CH (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28: 563-575.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x      [ Google Scholar ]

  12. Li J and Liang W (2024). Effectiveness of virtual laboratory in engineering education: A meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 19(12): e0316269.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316269      [ Google Scholar ] PMid:39775269 PMCid:PMC11684589

  13. Li X, Sulaiman NA, and Aziz AA (2024). A systematic review of blended learning in higher education: Second language acquisition through the community of inquiry framework. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 23(10): 226-251.  https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.23.10.11      [ Google Scholar ]

  14. Marikyan D, Papagiannidis S, and Stewart G (2023). Technology acceptance research: Meta-analysis. Journal of Information Science.  https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515231191177      [ Google Scholar ]

  15. Marshall G and Jonker L (2010). An introduction to descriptive statistics: A review and practical guide. Radiography, 16(4): e1-e7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2010.01.001      [ Google Scholar ]

  16. Mustafa AS and Garcia MB (2021). Theories integrated with technology acceptance model (TAM) in online learning acceptance and continuance intention: A systematic review. In the 2021 1st Conference on online teaching for mobile education (OT4ME), IEEE, Alcalá de Henares, Spain: 68-72.  https://doi.org/10.1109/OT4ME53559.2021.9638934      [ Google Scholar ]

  17. Norman G (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the "laws" of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15: 625-632.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y      [ Google Scholar ] PMid:20146096

  18. Ringle CM, Sarstedt M, Sinkovics N, and Sinkovics RR (2023). A perspective on using partial least squares structural equation modelling in data articles. Data in Brief, 48: 109074.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2023.109074      [ Google Scholar ] PMid:37066088 PMCid:PMC10090253

  19. Roca JC and Gagné M (2008). Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the workplace: A self-determination theory perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4): 1585-1604.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.06.001      [ Google Scholar ]

  20. Rukangu A, Tuttle A, and Johnsen K (2021). Virtual reality for remote controlled robotics in engineering education. In the 2021 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), IEEE, Lisbon, Portugal: 751-752.  https://doi.org/10.1109/VRW52623.2021.00258      [ Google Scholar ]

  21. Ryan RM and Deci EL (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61: 101860.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860      [ Google Scholar ]

  22. Shambare B and Jita T (2025). Factors influencing virtual lab adoption in marginalized rural schools: Insights from South Africa. Smart Learning Environments, 12: 11.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-025-00369-2      [ Google Scholar ]

  23. Talib SLA, Mohamad SIS, and Yahaya R (2024). Integrating ECM, TAM, and SDT in studying accounting lecturers' continuance intention for ODL: A review. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 9(8): e002918.  https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v9i8.2918      [ Google Scholar ]

  24. Yengkopiong JP (2025). The way forward for secondary school students: The role of self-determination theory and intrinsic motivation. East African Journal of Education Studies, 8(1): 288-299.  https://doi.org/10.37284/eajes.8.1.2643      [ Google Scholar ]

  25. Yusoff MSB (2019). ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation. Education in Medicine Journal, 11(2): 49-54.  https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2019.11.2.6      [ Google Scholar ]

  26. Zeng J, Sun D, Looi CK, and Fan ACW (2024). Exploring the impact of gamification on students' academic performance: A comprehensive meta‐analysis of studies from the year 2008 to 2023. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(6): 2478-2502.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13471      [ Google Scholar ]