View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Empowering the Digital Learner: Exploring the Relationship between Teacher Support, Autonomy in Technology, and Self-Efficacy in Chinese Vocational Colleges

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Empowering the Digital Learner: Exploring the Relationship between Teacher Support, Autonomy in Technology, and Self-Efficacy in Chinese Vocational Colleges
Language: English
Authors: Dan Wang (ORCID 0000-0002-9453-5609), Qian Qiu, Lijuan Wang, Yu Jiang, Aihua Ran
Source: Psychology in the Schools. 2024 61(12):4483-4496.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Student Empowerment, Teacher Student Relationship, Personal Autonomy, Technology Uses in Education, Self Efficacy, Vocational Schools, College Freshmen, Foreign Countries, Information Technology
Geographic Terms: China
DOI: 10.1002/pits.23294
ISSN: 0033-3085
1520-6807
Abstract: In Chinese vocational colleges, students often avoid classroom challenges and lack persistent academic engagement. This was perceived as a deficiency in self-efficacy and a need for greater teacher-student engagement. The rapid advancement of information technology in educational contexts indicates that the dynamics among teacher support, technological autonomy, and self-efficacy will become crucial for learning outcomes. Hence, this study explored the relationship between teacher support and student self-efficacy, focusing on the mediating role of student autonomy in technology. A questionnaire survey administered to 606 first-year students was analyzed using Pearson's correlation coefficient and Process V3.3. The results showed that teacher support and student self-efficacy were moderately positively correlated (r = 0.464, p < 0.01). However, technological autonomy appeared to be significantly positively correlated with teacher support (r = 0.368, p < 0.01) and self-efficacy (r = 0.515, p < 0.01). The results highlight the instrumental role of teacher support in enhancing student self-efficacy and the important role of technological autonomy as a mediating factor. These findings confirm the need for continuing social support and interactive roles between teachers and students to enhance student self-efficacy in higher education. Furthermore, technology should be leveraged to foster a conducive learning environment.
Abstractor: As Provided
Notes: https://pan.baidu.com/s/1iIZRKn10BcbQGu8F1b-k_w?pwd=rorz#list/path=%2F&parentPath=%2F
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1447543
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE6LxC2xgz6mv8M0i_2QtMQAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDM2Pzt4Z1UlW3O6thgIBEICBmjlppIYRwypg7_nJeWhRzoNHAnGgJR1chXvt7_xsdH0cnTeaezHAhD44SSLUrskGsK7gCvag7B68JBfH59-x6Gy4RqC7K1XESzVGM4W_dhwSUuQTFuhOLwY3Cj3Vabw2ulR9bQc1IZincauckcJzDkYHERjJ1Tng7hhREYbEJsKnWXd3cD6riUGhdx4an_LrfPx0sr7s9GWbXVs=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: &lt;anid&gt;AN0180737235;pis01dec.24;2024Nov11.04:57;v2.2.500&lt;/anid&gt; &lt;title id=&quot;AN0180737235-1&quot;&gt;Empowering the digital learner: Exploring the relationship between teacher support, autonomy in technology, and self‐efficacy in Chinese vocational colleges&#160;&lt;/title&gt; &lt;p&gt;In Chinese vocational colleges, students often avoid classroom challenges and lack persistent academic engagement. This was perceived as a deficiency in self‐efficacy and a need for greater teacher–student engagement. The rapid advancement of information technology in educational contexts indicates that the dynamics among teacher support, technological autonomy, and self‐efficacy will become crucial for learning outcomes. Hence, this study explored the relationship between teacher support and student self‐efficacy, focusing on the mediating role of student autonomy in technology. A questionnaire survey administered to 606 first‐year students was analyzed using Pearson&#39;s correlation coefficient and Process V3.3. The results showed that teacher support and student self‐efficacy were moderately positively correlated (r =.464, p &amp;lt;.01). However, technological autonomy appeared to be significantly positively correlated with teacher support (r =.368, p &amp;lt;.01) and self‐efficacy (r =.515, p &amp;lt;.01). The results highlight the instrumental role of teacher support in enhancing student self‐efficacy and the important role of technological autonomy as a mediating factor. These findings confirm the need for continuing social support and interactive roles between teachers and students to enhance student self‐efficacy in higher education. Furthermore, technology should be leveraged to foster a conducive learning environment.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Practitioner Points: Vocational students showed low self‐efficacy.Teachers can improve student self‐efficacy by being increasingly supportive.Leveraging technology in the classroom enhances the student‐learning environment.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Keywords: autonomy in technology; self‐efficacy; teacher support; vocational colleges&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-2&quot;&gt;INTRODUCTION&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Vocational colleges in China have evolved into pivotal incubators for fostering vocational talent. This objective aligns with national goals to propel technical and vocational education to meet the demands of the rapidly evolving economy (Chen,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib13&quot; id=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;13&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Despite this clear objective, students at these institutions tend to shy away from challenges and seldom complete learning tasks. Some researchers posit that this behavior indicates a lack of self‐efficacy (He,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib26&quot; id=&quot;ref2&quot;&gt;26&lt;/reflink&gt;]), ultimately influencing desirable academic outcomes. In exploring this behavior, researchers such as Wang ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib61&quot; id=&quot;ref3&quot;&gt;61&lt;/reflink&gt;]) reported how low levels of self‐efficacy hindered the completion of learning tasks in a case study involving 478 students at a vocational college in Anhui Province. Moreover, in another study at a Chinese vocational institution, Dong et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib20&quot; id=&quot;ref4&quot;&gt;20&lt;/reflink&gt;]) cited a lack of self‐confidence and social support as primary concerns. Their results concur with those of previous studies that underscore the pivotal role of self‐efficacy in fostering a positive academic experience (She,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib53&quot; id=&quot;ref5&quot;&gt;53&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Sun et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib57&quot; id=&quot;ref6&quot;&gt;57&lt;/reflink&gt;]). This behavior is not germane to China only. Teane and Gombwe ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib58&quot; id=&quot;ref7&quot;&gt;58&lt;/reflink&gt;]) attributed students&#39; poor performance at three vocational education and training colleges in South Africa to low self‐efficacy, which manifested from student and teacher passivity.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Students with high self‐efficacy tend to achieve better academically and enjoy school more (Bandura,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib5&quot; id=&quot;ref8&quot;&gt;5&lt;/reflink&gt;]), whereas those with low self‐efficacy often harbor doubts regarding their abilities and are more likely to avoid challenging tasks (Schunk &amp;amp; Pajares,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib50&quot; id=&quot;ref9&quot;&gt;50&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Enhancing self‐efficacy is imperative for the psychological and academic development of vocational college students (Qi,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib45&quot; id=&quot;ref10&quot;&gt;45&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Hence, the common low self‐efficacy among Chinese vocational college students calls for a deeper exploration and targeted interventions to promote high‐quality learning among these demographic data.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Various factors influence student self‐efficacy. The role of teacher support has generated multiple studies, particularly in higher education contexts. Teacher support is defined as engendering positive behaviors and attitudes directed toward promoting student learning and development. Furthermore, it represents a primary form of social support for students (Liu &amp;amp; Guo,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib35&quot; id=&quot;ref11&quot;&gt;35&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Luan et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib36&quot; id=&quot;ref12&quot;&gt;36&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Previous research has highlighted how a robust relationship between teacher support and student self‐efficacy improves learning outcomes. For instance, Chen and Jang ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib12&quot; id=&quot;ref13&quot;&gt;12&lt;/reflink&gt;]) demonstrated that teacher support enhanced student self‐efficacy and learning achievements in a virtual laboratory environment. Similarly, Tsai et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib59&quot; id=&quot;ref14&quot;&gt;59&lt;/reflink&gt;]) found that teacher support positively affects student self‐efficacy when using computer‐assisted instructional software. Overall, the rapid advancement of information technology, evolving learning environment, and interaction between teacher support and students&#39; technological autonomy continue to generate research. Numerous studies have illustrated a strong link between teacher support and students&#39; active engagement in leveraging technology for learning. For example, Barak ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib8&quot; id=&quot;ref15&quot;&gt;8&lt;/reflink&gt;]) found that teacher support could significantly improve students&#39; use of technological resources in the learning process. Similarly, Chuang and Chen ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib15&quot; id=&quot;ref16&quot;&gt;15&lt;/reflink&gt;]) revealed the positive effect of teacher support on high school students&#39; technological use and academic achievement.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Students&#39; use and competence of technology can assist in self‐directed learning and improve self‐efficacy. In a study of 332 Chinese undergraduate students, Pan ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib42&quot; id=&quot;ref17&quot;&gt;42&lt;/reflink&gt;]) showed that students who embraced technology in their English courses exhibited positive attitudes toward technology‐based learning. Similarly, in a survey of 25 undergraduates at a nursing college in the United States, McCoy ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib38&quot; id=&quot;ref18&quot;&gt;38&lt;/reflink&gt;]) found that students with expanded technological skills exhibited higher self‐efficacy. These results can be useful in planning instructions using technology to enrich coursework. Moreover, the learning environment is important, as Han and Geng ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib23&quot; id=&quot;ref19&quot;&gt;23&lt;/reflink&gt;]) highlighted in their questionnaire survey of 7210 Chinese undergraduate students during the pandemic. The authors confirmed the mediating role of self‐efficacy in students&#39; perceived support and deep approach to online education.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Although extant literature indicates a strong relationship between teacher support, student self‐efficacy, and technological autonomy, the mediating role of technological autonomy in the relationship between teacher support and student self‐efficacy, particularly among vocational college students, remains largely underexplored. Given the important role of vocational education in China&#39;s development goals, research that investigates academic performance in this area is crucial for students&#39; academic achievement and motivation. Therefore, this study examines the relationship between vocational college student self‐efficacy and teacher support and uses technological autonomy as a mediating factor.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-3&quot;&gt;THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-4&quot;&gt;Teacher support&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Teacher support is a crucial factor in students&#39; academic and emotional development as well as vocational education (Lazarov&#225; et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib33&quot; id=&quot;ref20&quot;&gt;33&lt;/reflink&gt;]). It reflects providing students with a nurturing relationship characterized by care, assistance, affirmation, and encouragement (Chaith,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib10&quot; id=&quot;ref21&quot;&gt;10&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Moreover, this relationship involves academic guidance and extends to emotional reassurance, culminating in a conducive learning environment. Miao and Li ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib39&quot; id=&quot;ref22&quot;&gt;39&lt;/reflink&gt;]) posit that teacher support further involves professional skill guidance and practical support rooted in professional knowledge aimed at holistic student learning and development.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Teacher support is anchored in the broader framework of social support theory and is a multidimensional concept drawn from theorists such as Bronfenbrenner ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib9&quot; id=&quot;ref23&quot;&gt;9&lt;/reflink&gt;]) and Wentzel ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib62&quot; id=&quot;ref24&quot;&gt;62&lt;/reflink&gt;]). The theory focuses on positive development outcomes among students for whom teacher support is pivotal in providing social support, such as managing stress and related challenges (Wentzel et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib63&quot; id=&quot;ref25&quot;&gt;63&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Teacher support cultivates positive relationships and conveys positive emotions, and counseling bolsters students&#39; self‐esteem, sense of control, and confidence. Thus, these aspects may improve students&#39; resilience to stress and challenges that affect academic performance. Honicke and Broadbent ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib27&quot; id=&quot;ref26&quot;&gt;27&lt;/reflink&gt;]) highlighted that teacher support in school was a more substantial predictor of students&#39; positive affect and self‐efficacy than peer support, although Wentzel et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib63&quot; id=&quot;ref27&quot;&gt;63&lt;/reflink&gt;]) emphasized teacher and peer support for student motivation.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The concept of teacher support is multifaceted, and little consensus exists on its central components among researchers. Some scholars argue that teacher support primarily comprises emotional, cognitive, and behavioral support (Hughes et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib28&quot; id=&quot;ref28&quot;&gt;28&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Emotional support addresses students&#39; emotional needs (Ruzek et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib48&quot; id=&quot;ref29&quot;&gt;48&lt;/reflink&gt;]), and cognitive support involves providing feedback, guidance, and support for students&#39; thinking and learning processes to enhance their cognitive abilities, confidence, and independent learning (Dicke et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib19&quot; id=&quot;ref30&quot;&gt;19&lt;/reflink&gt;]). In contrast, behavioral support facilitates students&#39; learning by offering substantial assistance, such as time and material support (Cunningham et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib16&quot; id=&quot;ref31&quot;&gt;16&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Conversely, some scholars contend that teacher support encompasses elements such as verbal praise, guidance, attention, trust, and resource provision (Cunningham et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib16&quot; id=&quot;ref32&quot;&gt;16&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Nevertheless, others propose that it depends on an individual&#39;s personality traits, interaction skills, professional knowledge, and educational experience (Jennings &amp;amp; Greenberg,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib29&quot; id=&quot;ref33&quot;&gt;29&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Overall, these perspectives underscore the richness and diversity of teacher support, which has been explored in various forms over the years (Hamre &amp;amp; Pianta,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib22&quot; id=&quot;ref34&quot;&gt;22&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Emotional and cognitive support is consistent in that they bolster students&#39; motivation and psychological well‐being (Hamre &amp;amp; Pianta,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib22&quot; id=&quot;ref35&quot;&gt;22&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Furthermore, the positive influence of teacher support on students&#39; academic achievement can be mediated through students&#39; self‐esteem, academic confidence, and learning motivation (Roorda et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib47&quot; id=&quot;ref36&quot;&gt;47&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Additionally, teacher feedback and support can mitigate students&#39; emotional and behavioral problems while enhancing their self‐esteem and self‐efficacy (Pekrun et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib43&quot; id=&quot;ref37&quot;&gt;43&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Teacher support is proposed as a vital form of social support and plays an important role in fostering students&#39; psychological and academic development.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;By examining the nuanced interactions between teacher support and self‐efficacy, this study contributes to the body of research on teacher support, thereby enriching the understanding and practice of fostering a supportive learning environment in vocational education settings and improving student self‐efficacy.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-5&quot;&gt;Self‐efficacy&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Self‐efficacy was conceptualized by the American psychologist Albert Bandura ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib1&quot; id=&quot;ref38&quot;&gt;1&lt;/reflink&gt;]) as an individual&#39;s confidence in their ability to execute a task. Furthermore, it includes an individual&#39;s expectations, perceptions, confidence, or beliefs regarding the requisite abilities to accomplish a designated goal and forms a core premise of social cognitive theory (SCT; Bandura,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib6&quot; id=&quot;ref39&quot;&gt;6&lt;/reflink&gt;]). In academia, self‐efficacy characterizes a student&#39;s diligence, persistence in academic pursuits, and resilience in confronting challenges. Moreover, it modulates an individual&#39;s achievement via selection, cognitive, motivational processes, and emotional responses and plays a central role in human behavior. Students with high self‐efficacy perform well academically and enjoy the school experience (Bandura,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib5&quot; id=&quot;ref40&quot;&gt;5&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Conversely, those with low self‐efficacy tend to be doubtful regarding their capabilities and are more inclined to avoid challenging tasks (Schunk &amp;amp; Pajares,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib50&quot; id=&quot;ref41&quot;&gt;50&lt;/reflink&gt;]). The SCT posits that individuals are proactive in shaping their environment, as opposed to merely reacting to it (Bandura,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref42&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;],&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib4&quot; id=&quot;ref43&quot;&gt;4&lt;/reflink&gt;]). The interplay is dynamic among intraindividual factors (i.e., cognitive, affective, and biological events), behaviors, and environmental events (Stirin Tzur et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib56&quot; id=&quot;ref44&quot;&gt;56&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The relationship between teacher support and self‐efficacy is susceptible to various environmental influences (Mathisen,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib37&quot; id=&quot;ref45&quot;&gt;37&lt;/reflink&gt;]). In higher education institutions, separate from peers (Wentzel et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib63&quot; id=&quot;ref46&quot;&gt;63&lt;/reflink&gt;]), teachers are the predominant providers of student support (Liu &amp;amp; Guo,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib35&quot; id=&quot;ref47&quot;&gt;35&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Luan et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib36&quot; id=&quot;ref48&quot;&gt;36&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Thus, teacher support can satisfy students&#39; fundamental needs for autonomy, competence, and interpersonal relationships. The provision of support and recognition by teachers can instill students with a sense of significance and valued recognition, thereby bolstering self‐efficacy. Empirical studies underscore a positive correlation between students&#39; perceived teacher support, self‐efficacy, and academic achievement (Chang &amp;amp; Bangsri,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib11&quot; id=&quot;ref49&quot;&gt;11&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Pajares ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib41&quot; id=&quot;ref50&quot;&gt;41&lt;/reflink&gt;]) revealed that a significant positive association between teacher support and student self‐efficacy enhances academic achievement and motivation. When students discern a supportive and encouraging demeanor from teachers, they are more amenable to experimenting with new learning strategies, thus enhancing academic achievement and self‐efficacy (Mitchell &amp;amp; DellaMattera,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib40&quot; id=&quot;ref51&quot;&gt;40&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Conversely, a reduction in teacher support can adversely affect students&#39; self‐efficacy. Hence, teacher support is identified as a pivotal factor in nurturing students&#39; self‐efficacy. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is posited.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-6&quot;&gt;H1.&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Teacher support is positively correlated with self‐efficacy.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-7&quot;&gt;Autonomy in technology&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Autonomy in technology represents students&#39; proactive and innovative engagement with technology (Reinders,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib46&quot; id=&quot;ref52&quot;&gt;46&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Furthermore, technology initiatives are contingent on an individual&#39;s intrinsic motivation and their supportive environment (Peters et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib44&quot; id=&quot;ref53&quot;&gt;44&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Proponents of self‐determination theory (SDT) posit that individuals are inherently driven to explore, learn, and grow, although the social context of the environment is instrumental in predicting learning performance and outcomes (Deci &amp;amp; Ryan,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib18&quot; id=&quot;ref54&quot;&gt;18&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Hence, environments that bolster self‐determination are increasingly conducive to fostering positive learning behaviors and technology initiatives (Shahzad et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib52&quot; id=&quot;ref55&quot;&gt;52&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;SCT contends that learning and development transpire through observation and self‐regulation, instead of reactive behaviors that are controlled by environmental and biological forces (Bandura,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib7&quot; id=&quot;ref56&quot;&gt;7&lt;/reflink&gt;]). In this context, the role of teacher support and guidance in instilling confidence and competence in technological use among students is pivotal. Moreover, it underscores the need to create challenging and creative learning environments (Ruzek et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib48&quot; id=&quot;ref57&quot;&gt;48&lt;/reflink&gt;]). In the 21st‐century educational environment, student engagement with technology (e.g., curiosity and enjoyment) coupled with teacher support can foster intrinsic and extrinsic motivation toward effective technological use (Silva,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib55&quot; id=&quot;ref58&quot;&gt;55&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Consequently, students may be more inclined to perceive technological use as positive if it can augment their academic performance, expedite the attainment of learning outcomes, or hasten the completion of learning tasks. Some researchers have reported the positive influence of teacher support in this domain. For instance, Shahzad et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib52&quot; id=&quot;ref59&quot;&gt;52&lt;/reflink&gt;]) revealed that support manifested through technological assistance encouraged experimentation with new technology, and the provision of feedback positively influenced student self‐efficacy and competence in e‐learning environments. Similarly, Lai et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib32&quot; id=&quot;ref60&quot;&gt;32&lt;/reflink&gt;]) indicated that students perceived that teacher support enhances their ability to use technology for autonomous learning. The findings indicate that teacher support in students&#39; use of technological resources may be crucial for positive learning outcomes. Accordingly, this study posits the following hypothesis.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-8&quot;&gt;H2a.&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Teacher support is positively correlated with autonomy in technology.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;As mentioned earlier, technology initiatives are intrinsically tied to intrinsic motivation and learning capability. Technology initiatives facilitate students&#39; acquisition and application (Shahzad et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib52&quot; id=&quot;ref61&quot;&gt;52&lt;/reflink&gt;]). When students take the initiative to use technology in task completion, it refines their technical skills and enhances their confidence and abilities. For example, Kuo and Belland ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib31&quot; id=&quot;ref62&quot;&gt;31&lt;/reflink&gt;]) demonstrated that student self‐efficacy strengthened when they completed more learning tasks in a technology‐supported environment. Students&#39; cultivation of self‐directed learning and problem‐solving skills through technological learning and application enhances their confidence in other subject areas (Lai et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib32&quot; id=&quot;ref63&quot;&gt;32&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-9&quot;&gt;H2b.&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Autonomy in technology is positively correlated with self‐efficacy.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The mediating variable produced the following hypothesis.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-10&quot;&gt;H3.&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Autonomy in technology mediates the effect of teacher support on self‐efficacy.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-11&quot;&gt;MATERIALS AND METHODS&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-12&quot;&gt;Participants and procedures&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The study was conducted from October 4 to November 19, 2022, at a vocational college in Sichuan Province, China. We administered an online anonymous electronic survey to first‐year students using a management website (questionnaire.com). Approximately 654 first‐year students, who comprised full‐time freshmen from liberal arts and science majors including computer science, railroad transportation, and English majors, completed the questionnaire. Only 606 valid responses were received (92.67%).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Participants were provided with a link that directed them to the website. By clicking on the link, participants accessed an embedded form with information regarding the study&#39;s purpose, their rights to confidentiality, the voluntary nature of their participation, and their right to withdraw without penalty. Students were required to click &quot;Agree&quot; or &quot;Disagree&quot; if they wanted to participate or exit the website, respectively.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-13&quot;&gt;Data collection instrument&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The data collection instrument comprised a four‐part questionnaire including (a) demographic information, (b) a learning climate scale (to assess teacher support), (c) a self‐efficacy scale, and (d) an autonomy and competence in technology adoption scale. Demographic data included gender, age, ethnicity, and high school academic achievement rankings. The questionnaires were originally written in English but were translated into Chinese. The researchers used reverse translation and compared the translation with the source document to ensure the accuracy of the questionnaire and reconcile any differences.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-14&quot;&gt;Measures&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-15&quot;&gt;Learning climate scale&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The learning climate scale was used to understand how students perceived support from their instructors regarding autonomy (Williams &amp;amp; Deci,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib64&quot; id=&quot;ref64&quot;&gt;64&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Questions were crafted to assess the extent to which educators facilitate an environment that supports student autonomy—a key component of teacher support (e.g., &quot;I feel that my instructor provides me choices and options&quot; and &quot;I feel that my instructor accepts me&quot;). The scale comprises 15 items based on a 5‐point scale ranging from 1 &quot;strongly disagree&quot; to 5 &quot;strongly agree.&quot; This scale was modified from the original 7 point scale to a five‐point scale to facilitate comparisons between scores of different variables examined in this study. The Cronbach&#39;s alpha coefficient was 0.925 in this study.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-16&quot;&gt;Self‐efficacy scale&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The general self‐efficacy scale (GSES; Schwarzer et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib51&quot; id=&quot;ref65&quot;&gt;51&lt;/reflink&gt;]) is specifically designed for use in several cultures and measures the extent of an individual&#39;s self‐belief in their ability to accomplish tasks and cope with life challenges. Examples of the questions were &quot;It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals&quot; and &quot;I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough.&quot; The GSES comprises 10 items based on a 5‐point scale ranging from 1 &quot;not at all true&quot; to 5 &quot;very true.&quot; The rating scale was modified from the original 4 point scale to a five‐point scale to facilitate comparisons between scores of different variables examined in this study. The Cronbach&#39;s alpha coefficient was .893 in this study.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-17&quot;&gt;Autonomy and competence in technology adoption scale&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The autonomy and competence in technology adoption questionnaire seeks to understand why people adopt the use of technology and the extent to which they perceive they will be competent to use it (Ryan &amp;amp; Connell,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib49&quot; id=&quot;ref66&quot;&gt;49&lt;/reflink&gt;]). The questions included &quot;I want others to know I use it&quot; and &quot;I expected it will be interesting to use.&quot; The scale comprised 12 items based on a 5‐point scale ranging from 1 &quot;not at all true&quot; to 5 &quot;very true.&quot; The Cronbach&#39;s alpha coefficient was .862 in this study.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-18&quot;&gt;Data collection process&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The survey results were downloaded from the website and saved in an Excel spreadsheet. After data screening, 48 of the 654 questionnaires were incomplete; therefore, they were excluded from the total. Subsequently, we manually reversed the scores for items that required reverse scoring to ensure that the data accurately reflected the intended measures. The items related to different variables were renamed to facilitate the calculation of mean values when importing the data into statistical software. This enabled streamlining of the analysis by simplifying the identification and manipulation of variables across the data set, thereby enhancing the efficiency and clarity of the data analysis.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-19&quot;&gt;Statistical analyses&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS (version 23.0). To assess the potential common method bias in this study, the Harman single‐factor test was used to evaluate the data for homoscedasticity. Thus, 17 factors manifested eigenvalues exceeding 1, with the first factor accounting for 18.97% of the variance, which is considerably below the critical threshold of 40%. This finding indicates that the common method bias does not pose a serious concern in the scale. The variance between the independent and dependent variables may not be attributable to disparities in measurement methods and data collection but rather to inherent differences among the variables.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Subsequently, descriptive statistics were conducted to discern trends in concentration and dispersion. This involved computing the mean and standard deviation for each variable. Moreover, the Pearson product–moment correlation coefficient analysis was employed to examine the correlations among the variables.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Finally, to scrutinize the mediation model (Model 4), PROCESS V3.3 (Hayes,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib25&quot; id=&quot;ref67&quot;&gt;25&lt;/reflink&gt;]) was employed. The bias‐corrected bootstrap method, with a sample size of 5000, was leveraged to evaluate the indirect effects indicator at a 95% confidence interval. If the 95% confidence interval bounds do not encompass a zero value, it signifies that the mediation holds statistical significance (Shrout &amp;amp; Bolger,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib54&quot; id=&quot;ref68&quot;&gt;54&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-20&quot;&gt;RESULTS&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-21&quot;&gt;Demographic data&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Of the 606 valid questionnaires, 377 (62.2%) and 229 (37.8%) participants were male and female, respectively. Most respondents (336; 55.4%) were aged between 17 and 18 years. While 3.8% (&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib23&quot; id=&quot;ref69&quot;&gt;23&lt;/reflink&gt;) of the respondents identified as Nationals, the majority (583; 96.2%) identified as Han. Most of the sample ranked between the top 40% and 70% (39.4%) in high school academic achievement (Table&#160;1).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;1 Table Demographic characteristics of the participants.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead valign=&quot;bottom&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr valign=&quot;bottom&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Baseline characteristics&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Number&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;%&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody valign=&quot;top&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Gender&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Male&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;377&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;62.2&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Female&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;229&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;37.8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Age (years)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;17&amp;amp;#8211;18&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;336&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;55.4&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;19&amp;amp;#8211;22&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;270&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;44.6&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Ethnicity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Han&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;583&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;96.2&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;National&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;23&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3.8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;High school academic achievement rankings&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Top 20 percentile of the class&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;71&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;11.7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Top 20&amp;amp;#8211;40 percentile of the class&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;123&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;20.30&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Top 40&amp;amp;#8211;70 percentile of the class&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;239&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;39.4&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Below the top 70 percentile of the class&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;173&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;28.6&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-22&quot;&gt;Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Tables&#160;2 and&#160;3 show the descriptive statistics and correlations between variables. Teacher support and self‐efficacy were significantly and positively correlated among vocational college students (&lt;emph&gt;r&lt;/emph&gt; = .464**, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; .01). Teacher support and autonomy in technology were positively and significantly correlated (&lt;emph&gt;r&lt;/emph&gt; = .368**, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; .01); Autonomy in technology was significantly and positively correlated with self‐efficacy (&lt;emph&gt;r&lt;/emph&gt; = .515**, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; .01). Therefore, the intercorrelations among the study variables were consistent with the hypothesis, thereby providing a preliminary validation of the theoretical underpinnings of the study.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;2 Table Descriptive statistics.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead valign=&quot;bottom&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr valign=&quot;bottom&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Variables&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;SD&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody valign=&quot;top&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Teacher support&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;606&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2.2431&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.54018&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Self&amp;amp;#8208;efficacy&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;606&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2.6883&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.63411&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Autonomy in technology&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;606&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2.8507&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.62440&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;1 &lt;emph&gt;Note&lt;/emph&gt;: &lt;emph&gt;N&lt;/emph&gt; = 606; &lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt;, mean; SD, standard deviation.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;3 Table Pearson&#39;s correlation coefficient.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead valign=&quot;bottom&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr valign=&quot;bottom&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Variables&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Teacher support&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Self&amp;amp;#8208;efficacy&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Autonomy in technology&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody valign=&quot;top&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Teacher support&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8208;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8208;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8208;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Self&amp;amp;#8208;efficacy&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.464&amp;lt;ext-link href=&quot;**&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8208;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8208;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Autonomy in technology&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.368&amp;lt;ext-link href=&quot;**&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.515&amp;lt;ext-link href=&quot;**&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8208;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;2 ** &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; .01.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-23&quot;&gt;Mediating effect of autonomy on technology&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Process V3.3 (Hayes,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib25&quot; id=&quot;ref70&quot;&gt;25&lt;/reflink&gt;]) allowed the researchers to evaluate the proposed mediation model. Table&#160;4 shows that the independent variable, teacher support, positively and significantly influence the dependent variable self‐efficacy (&lt;emph&gt;β&lt;/emph&gt; = .367, SE = 0.042, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; .001). Furthermore, teacher support positively and significantly affect autonomy in technology (&lt;emph&gt;β&lt;/emph&gt; = .446, SE = 0.043, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; .001). Autonomy in technology was also found to positively and significantly affect self‐efficacy (&lt;emph&gt;β&lt;/emph&gt; = .400, SE = 0.036, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; .001). Autonomy in technology appeared to mediate the relationship between teacher support and self‐efficacy.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;4 Table Mediating effect of autonomy in technology on the relationship between teacher support and self‐efficacy.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead valign=&quot;bottom&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr valign=&quot;bottom&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;On autonomy in technology&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;On self&amp;amp;#8208;efficacy&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr valign=&quot;bottom&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Predictors&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#946;&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;SE&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;t&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;95% CI&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#946;&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;SE&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;t&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;95% CI&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody valign=&quot;top&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Teacher support&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.446&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.043&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;10.283&amp;lt;ext-link href=&quot;***&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;[0.361, 0.531]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.367&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.042&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8.758&amp;lt;ext-link href=&quot;***&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;[0.284, 0.449]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Autonomy in technology&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.400&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.036&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;11.057&amp;lt;ext-link href=&quot;***&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;[0.329, 0.471]&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;3 *** &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; .001. Analyses conducted using PROCESS Model 4, &lt;emph&gt;N&lt;/emph&gt; = 606.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;As illustrated in Table&#160;5, direct (0.366) and mediating (0.179) effects accounted for 67.16% and 32.84% of the total effect (0.545), respectively. Given that the CI for the indirect effect of the independent variable (teacher support) on the dependent variable (self‐efficacy) did not encompass the zero value even after the inclusion of the hypothesized mediator (autonomy in technology), autonomy in technology was inferred to partially mediate the relationship between teacher support and self‐efficacy.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;5 Table Total, direct, and indirect effects.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead valign=&quot;bottom&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr valign=&quot;bottom&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;Effect size&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;Boot SE&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;Boot CI lower limit&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;Boot CI upper limit&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Relative effect size (%)&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody valign=&quot;top&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Total effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.545&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.042&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.462&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.628&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Direct effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.366&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.042&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.284&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.449&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;67.16&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Indirect effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.179&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.028&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.129&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.237&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;32.84&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-24&quot;&gt;DISCUSSION&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;This case study examined the relationship between self‐efficacy and teacher support using technological autonomy as a mediating factor among students at a vocational college in Sichuan Province, China. Teacher support, as defined in this context, includes diverse aspects, such as care, assistance, affirmation, and encouragement (Chaith,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib10&quot; id=&quot;ref71&quot;&gt;10&lt;/reflink&gt;]), because they are considered integral to developing students&#39; psychological and academic foundations. This notion extends the premise of Honicke and Broadbent ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib27&quot; id=&quot;ref72&quot;&gt;27&lt;/reflink&gt;]) and Roorda et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib47&quot; id=&quot;ref73&quot;&gt;47&lt;/reflink&gt;]) that a supportive teacher–student relationship significantly bolsters self‐efficacy, thus enabling academic resilience and achievement.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-25&quot;&gt;H1.&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Teacher support is positively correlated with self‐efficacy.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The results showed a predictive relationship between teacher support and self‐efficacy (&lt;emph&gt;β&lt;/emph&gt; = .367, SE = 0.042, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; .001), which is unsurprising given that Lei et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib34&quot; id=&quot;ref74&quot;&gt;34&lt;/reflink&gt;]) also reported that teacher support positively influences student motivation and self‐efficacy. However, the correlation aligns with the findings of Wentzel et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib63&quot; id=&quot;ref75&quot;&gt;63&lt;/reflink&gt;]) that social support is multidimensional and that learning outcomes may be hinged on students&#39; perceptions of their instructors&#39; and peers&#39; expectations of academic outcomes. Therefore, the use of Bandura&#39;s SCT and Ryan and Deci&#39;s SDT was instructive in highlighting the importance of communication and assistance in promoting positive developmental outcomes to foster student self‐efficacy.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Previous research (Chong et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib14&quot; id=&quot;ref76&quot;&gt;14&lt;/reflink&gt;]) has shown that teacher support can boost student engagement and help them overcome challenges while continuing their educational journey. Thus, teacher support also acts as a catalyst, propelling students toward enhanced self‐efficacy.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-26&quot;&gt;H2a.&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Teacher support is positively correlated with autonomy in technology.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The results showed a positive correlation (&lt;emph&gt;r&lt;/emph&gt; = .368**, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; .01), supporting the role of teacher support in student autonomy in technology. Bandura&#39;s ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref77&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;]) SCT was coupled with Deci and Ryan&#39;s ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib17&quot; id=&quot;ref78&quot;&gt;17&lt;/reflink&gt;]) SDT to measure relatedness, self‐efficacy, autonomy, and achievement. The premise was that a conducive environment, that is, teaching support, is instrumental in bolstering self‐determination and promoting positive learning behaviors (Shahzad et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib52&quot; id=&quot;ref79&quot;&gt;52&lt;/reflink&gt;]). This connection was found in studies by Ruzek et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib48&quot; id=&quot;ref80&quot;&gt;48&lt;/reflink&gt;]), showing that teacher support fostered engagement and exploration with technology. Furthermore, technological assistance, encouragement, and feedback are some ways in which teacher support can encourage autonomy in technology (Shahzad et al.,&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib52&quot; id=&quot;ref81&quot;&gt;52&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-27&quot;&gt;H2b.&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Autonomy in technology is positively correlated with self‐efficacy.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The results showed a significant positive correlation between autonomy in technology and self‐efficacy (&lt;emph&gt;β&lt;/emph&gt; = .400, SE = 0.036, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; .001). This correlation is consistent with similar studies on adult learners, such as Kuo and Belland ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib31&quot; id=&quot;ref82&quot;&gt;31&lt;/reflink&gt;]), demonstrating how students thrive in a technology‐supportive environment that encourages initiative and creativity. Moreover, in an earlier study, Han et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib24&quot; id=&quot;ref83&quot;&gt;24&lt;/reflink&gt;]) showed how a positive relationship between students&#39; technology initiative and their self‐efficacy enhanced learning outcomes, which was illustrated through students&#39; perceived ease of use. Similarly, Keengwe and Kidd ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib30&quot; id=&quot;ref84&quot;&gt;30&lt;/reflink&gt;]) underscored that students&#39; engagement with technology in learning activities positively influenced their self‐efficacy beliefs in using technology. Their study emphasized the importance of providing meaningful opportunities for students to engage with technology, thereby enhancing their self‐efficacy and engagement in learning. Thus, the findings align with Bandura&#39;s ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib1&quot; id=&quot;ref85&quot;&gt;1&lt;/reflink&gt;]) seminal concept of self‐efficacy.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-28&quot;&gt;H3.&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Autonomy in technology mediates the effect of teacher support on self‐efficacy.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Autonomy in technology appeared to mediate the relationship between teacher support and self‐efficacy. The findings are consistent with studies such as Duchatelet and Donche ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib21&quot; id=&quot;ref86&quot;&gt;21&lt;/reflink&gt;]), which suggested that the quality and quantity of motivational support students received were instructive for achievement. Furthermore, as VanDerSchaaf et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib60&quot; id=&quot;ref87&quot;&gt;60&lt;/reflink&gt;]) confirmed in their mixed‐methods study, leveraging the adoption of IT was important in transforming higher education and aligned well with China&#39;s overall goal. Hence, the relationship between these variables is predictive of students&#39; perceived benefits and their response to teaching support and consistent with the multidimensional concept drawn from theorists such as Bronfenbrenner ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib9&quot; id=&quot;ref88&quot;&gt;9&lt;/reflink&gt;]) and Wentzel ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib62&quot; id=&quot;ref89&quot;&gt;62&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-29&quot;&gt;CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICE&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;This study sought to highlight the role of teacher support in bolstering self‐efficacy among vocational college students using autonomy in technological use as a mediating factor. This study was prompted by the need to improve the academic outcomes of these students based on previous research that pointed to low self‐efficacy in this demographic. The need to leverage autonomy in technology in the classroom is one of the main contributions of this study based on a significantly positive correlation with self‐efficacy. Moreover, teachers should increase their support to students to engender a learning environment that is an increasingly harmonious space for students to innovate and create. This may motivate them to seek the required support to improve their academic learning outcomes. This recommendation was made based on the correlations between teacher support and student self‐efficacy.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-30&quot;&gt;LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The study had some limitations. One of the methodological limitations was the sample population of only first‐year students at a singular vocational college in China, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Although useful for showing between‐subjects comparison, the use of a cross‐sectional design might have been more robust by introducing a cohort effect by incorporating students at the middle or endpoints of their program. Furthermore, the inclusion of qualitative techniques might have been instructive in adding students&#39; voices to the quantitative data. Additionally, there was insufficient use of the gender variable to assess whether it mediates how teacher support is perceived. The exclusion of faculty members was also a limitation because the results were reported based on student self‐reporting of the teacher–student relationship. Therefore, future studies should examine both groups and include students at the end of their program to assess the strength of the relationship between both groups. Moreover, the unequal representation between ethnic groups (Han = 583, national = 33) was unexplored, which may have introduced some cultural constructs into the teacher support dynamics. The learning climate and self‐efficacy scales demonstrated high reliability and validity in previous research. However, the modifications made to the ratings (from 7‐ to 5‐point for the learning climate scale and from 4‐ to 5‐point for the self‐efficacy scale) may have affected their validity and reliability in the context of our study. This is despite their obtaining high internal consistency in our preliminary tests (Cronbach&#39;s alpha coefficients of.925 and.893, respectively). These results are only indicative of preliminary validation, and future research should independently validate these modified scales for reliability and validity. Finally, future research can cover diverse samples by including other vocational colleges and years of study, thus enriching the external validity. Furthermore, longitudinal design might be useful to determine the long‐term effects of teacher support.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-31&quot;&gt;ACKNOWLEDGMENTS&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;We are thankful to the vocational college teachers and students for their wholehearted cooperation with the researchers. Thanks also goes to Professor Wang Yin (Urban Vocational College of Sichuan) for her support. The study was supported by the Achievements of the 2023 Sichuan Education Information Technology Research General Project &quot;Application Research on School‐Enterprise Co‐construction and Co‐education Teaching Mode Based on Panoramic Recognition AR Technology&quot;, Project No. DSJZXKT319.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-32&quot;&gt;CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The authors declare no conflict of interest.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0180737235-33&quot;&gt;DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in baiduwangpan at https://pan.baidu.com/s/1iIZRKn10BcbQGu8F1b-k_w?pwd=rorz.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;ref id=&quot;AN0180737235-34&quot;&gt; &lt;title&gt; REFERENCES &lt;/title&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib1&quot; idref=&quot;ref38&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;1&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Bandura, A. (1977). Self‐efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191 – 215. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib2&quot; idref=&quot;ref42&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;2&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Bandura, A. (1978). Self‐efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1 (4), 139 – 161. https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6402(78)90002-4&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib3&quot; idref=&quot;ref77&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;3&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175 – 1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib4&quot; idref=&quot;ref43&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;4&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Bandura, A. (1997). Self‐efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and Co.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib5&quot; idref=&quot;ref8&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;5&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2 (1), 21 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00024&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib6&quot; idref=&quot;ref39&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;6&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib7&quot; idref=&quot;ref56&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;7&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Bandura, A. (2010). Social cognitive theory. In International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed.). Springer. https://&lt;ulink href=&quot;http://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/social-cognitive-theory&quot;&gt;www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/social-cognitive-theory&lt;/ulink&gt;&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib8&quot; idref=&quot;ref15&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;8&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Barak, M. (2018). Are digital natives open to change? Examining flexible thinking and resistance to change. Computers &amp;amp; Education. 121, 115 – 123.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib9&quot; idref=&quot;ref23&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;9&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. International Encyclopedia of Education, 3, 37 – 43.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Chaith, G. M. (2002). The relationship between cooperative learning, perception of social support, and academic achievement. System, 30 (3), 263 – 273. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00014-3&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Chang, Y. C., &amp;amp; Bangsri, A. (2020). Thai students&#39; perceived teacher support on their reading ability: Mediating effects of self‐efficacy and sense of school belonging. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 6 (2), 435 – 446. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.6.2.435&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Chen, K. C., &amp;amp; Jang, S. J. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self‐determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (4), 741 – 752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.011&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Chen, L. (2023). Bo xia xin xi hua zhong zi, shi ying shu zi hua dai lai de ke tang bian ge‐yi si chuan tie dao zhi ye xue yuan xin xi ji shu ke cheng wei li [Adapting to the classroom changes brought about by digitalization—taking the information technology course of Sichuan Railway Vocational College as an example]. Knowledge Library, 18, 21 – 24.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Chong, W. H., Liem, G. A. D., Huan, V. S., Kit, P. L., &amp;amp; Ang, R. P. (2018). Student perceptions of self‐efficacy and teacher support for learning in fostering youth competencies: Roles of affective and cognitive engagement. Journal of Adolescence, 68, 1 – 11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.07.002&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Chuang, T. Y., &amp;amp; Chen, Y. L. (2016). Impact of teacher support on high school students&#39; technology use and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54, 795 – 810.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Cunningham, J. E., Hemmeter, M. L., &amp;amp; Kaiser, A. P. (2020). The relation between teachers&#39; positive behavior support and language support. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 40 (3), 131 – 142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121420943653&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Deci, E. L., &amp;amp; Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self‐determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19 (2), 109 – 134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Deci, E. L., &amp;amp; Ryan, R. M. (2015). Self‐determination theory. In International encyclopedia of the social &amp;amp; behavioral science (2nd ed., pp. 486 – 491). Sage Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26036-4&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Dicke, A. L., Rubach, C., Safavian, N., Karabenick, S. A., &amp;amp; Eccles, J. S. (2021). Less direct than you thought: Do teachers transmit math value to students through their cognitive support for understanding? Learning and Instruction, 76, 101521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101521&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Dong, L. Y., Zhao, Q., &amp;amp; Wang, M. W. (2021). Gao zhi yuan xiao xue qian jiao yu zhuan ye xue sheng xue ye zi wo xiao neng gan de ying Xiang yin su ji pei yang ce lv [Influencing factors and training strategies of preschool students&#39; academic self‐efficacy in higher vocational colleges]. Academy, 14, 62 – 64.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Duchatelet, D., &amp;amp; Donche, V. (2019). Fostering self‐efficacy and self‐regulation in higher education: A matter of autonomy support or academic motivation? Higher Education Research &amp;amp; Development, 38 (4), 733 – 747. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1581143&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Hamre, B. K., &amp;amp; Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first‐grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76 (5), 949 – 967. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00889.x&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Han, J., &amp;amp; Geng, X. (2023). University students&#39; approaches to online learning technologies: The roles of perceived support, affect/emotion and self‐efficacy in technology‐enhanced learning. Computers &amp;amp; Education, 194, 104695.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Han, S., Capraro, R., &amp;amp; Capraro, M. M. (2015). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project‐based learning (PBL) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: The impact of student factors on achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 1089 – 1113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9526-0&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression‐based approach. Guilford Press.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; He, X. Y. (2019). Gao zhi xue sheng xing fu gan zhi ye zi wo xiao neng gan Zhuang kuang fen xi ji dui ce yan jiu [Analysis and countermeasures of vocational students&#39; happiness and career self‐efficacy: A case study of a vocational college in Nanjing]. Popular Science, 12, 187 – 188. https://doi.org/10.16728/j.cnki.kxdz.2019.12.164&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Honicke, T., &amp;amp; Broadbent, J. (2016). The influence of academic self‐efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 17, 63 – 84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.11.002&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., &amp;amp; Willson, V. (2001). Further support for the developmental significance of the quality of the teacher–student relationship. Journal of School Psychology, 39 (4), 289 – 301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00074-7&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Jennings, P. A., &amp;amp; Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79 (1), 491 – 525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Keengwe, J., &amp;amp; Kidd, T. T. (2010). Towards best practices in online learning and teaching in higher education. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6 (2), 533 – 541.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Kuo, Y. C., &amp;amp; Belland, B. R. (2019). Exploring the relationship between African American adult learners&#39; computer, Internet, and academic self‐efficacy, and attitude variables in technology‐supported environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 31, 626 – 642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-019-09212-3&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Lai, C., Yeung, Y., &amp;amp; Hu, J. (2016). University student and teacher perceptions of teacher roles in promoting autonomous language learning with technology outside the classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29 (4), 703 – 723. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1016441&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Lazarov&#225;, B., Hlaďo, P., &amp;amp; Hlouškov&#225;, L. (2019). Perception of teacher support by students in vocational education and its associations with career adaptability and other variables. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 12 (4), 47 – 64. https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2019.0403&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Lei, H., Cui, Y., &amp;amp; Chiu, M. M. (2018). The relationship between teacher support and students&#39; academic emotions: A meta‐analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2288. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02288&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Liu, X. H., &amp;amp; Guo, J. D. (2021). Wai yu zai xian jiao xue jiao shi zhi chi yu xue sheng jiao hu tou ru he xue xi yu yue de guan xi [teacher support, interaction engagement and learning enjoyment in on‐line EFL Teaching]. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 44. 34 – 42.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Luan, L., Dong, Y., &amp;amp; Liu, J. J. (2022). Jiao shi zhi chi ce lv dui da xue sheng zai xian xue xi tou ru de ying Xiang yan jiu [The influence of teacher support strategies on college students&#39; online learning engagement]. Modern Educational Technology, 3, 119 – 126.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Mathisen, G. E. (2011). Organizational antecedents of creative self‐efficacy. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20 (3), 185 – 195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2011.00606.x&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; McCoy, C. (2010). Perceived self‐efficacy and technology proficiency in undergraduate college students. Computers &amp;amp; Education, 55 (4), 1614 – 1617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.003&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Miao, X. J., &amp;amp; Li, D. (2022). Bi jiao shi ye xia de jiao shi xue xi zhi chi su yang: yi yi chan ming yu zhi biao jian gou [A study on the significance and structure of teachers&#39; &quot;learning support&quot; competence in a comparative perspective]. Studies in Foreign Education, 49, 17.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Mitchell, S., &amp;amp; DellaMattera, J. (2011). Teacher support and student&#39;s self‐efficacy beliefs. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Education, 5 (2). 24 – 35. https://doi.org/10.20355/C5X30Q&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Pajares, F. (2003). Self‐efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading &amp;amp; Writing Quarterly, 19 (2), 139 – 158. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308222&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Pan, X. (2020). Technology acceptance, technological self‐efficacy, and attitude toward technology‐based self‐directed learning: Learning motivation as a mediator. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 564294. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.564294&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., &amp;amp; Maier, M. A. (2009). Achievement goals and achievement emotions: Testing a model of their joint relations with academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (1), 115 – 135. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013383&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Peters, D., Calvo, R. A., &amp;amp; Ryan, R. M. (2018). Designing for motivation, engagement and wellbeing in digital experience. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 797. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00797&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Qi, X. J. (2020). Gao zhi xue sheng zi wo xiao neng gan he xin li jian kang zhi jian de guan xi [The relationship between self‐efficacy and mental health of vocational college students]. Chinese and Foreign Entrepreneurs, 8, 237.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Reinders, H. (2018). Technology and autonomy. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 15, 1 – 5. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0433&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L., &amp;amp; Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students&#39; school engagement and achievement: A meta‐analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81 (4), 493 – 529. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311421793&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Ruzek, E. A., Hafen, C. A., Allen, J. P., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., &amp;amp; Pianta, R. C. (2016). How teacher emotional support motivates students: The mediating roles of perceived peer relatedness, autonomy support, and competence. Learning and Instruction, 42, 95 – 103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.004&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Ryan, R. M., &amp;amp; Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (5), 749 – 761. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.57.5.749&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Schunk, D., &amp;amp; Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self‐efficacy. In A. Wigfield &amp;amp; J. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 15 – 31). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012750053-9/50003-6&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Schwarzer, R., Born, A., Iwawaki, S., &amp;amp; Lee, Y. M. (1997). The assessment of optimistic self‐beliefs: Comparison of the Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, and Korean versions of the general self‐efficacy scale. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 40 (1), 1 – 13.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Shahzad, F., Xiu, G., Khan, I., Shahbaz, M., Riaz, M. U., &amp;amp; Abbas, A. (2020). The moderating role of intrinsic motivation in cloud computing adoption in online education in a developing country: A structural equation model. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21, 121 – 141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09611-2&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; She, J. B. (2019). Gao zhi xue sheng ying yu xue xi zi wo xiao neng gan de ying Xiang yin su ji pei yang ce lv de yan jiu [A study on the influencing factors and training strategies of vocational college students&#39; self‐efficacy in English learning]. English on Campus, 22, 38 – 39.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Shrout, P. E., &amp;amp; Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7 (4), 422 – 445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.7.4.422&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Silva, P. (2015). Davis&#39; technology acceptance model (TAM) (1989). In Information seeking behavior and technology adoption: Theories and trends (pp. 205 – 219). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8156-9.ch013&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Stirin Tzur, K., Ganzach, Y., &amp;amp; Pazy, A. (2016). On the positive and negative effects of self‐efficacy on performance: Reward as a moderator. Human Performance, 29 (5), 362 – 377. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2016.1192631&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Sun, L. L., Ning, J. P., &amp;amp; Feng, H. L. (2021). Gao zhi xue sheng xue ye zi wo xiao neng gan de ying Xiang yin su ji pei yang ce lv [The influencing factors and training strategies of vocational college students&#39; academic self‐efficacy]. Agriculture of Henan, 6, 8 – 9. https://doi.org/10.15904/j.cnki.hnny.2021.06.002&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Teane, F. M., &amp;amp; Gombwe, R. (2023). Self‐efficacy as a tool to enhance students&#39; classroom participation: TVET/FET college&#39;s student views on the causes of student passivity. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 47 (11), 696 – 708. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2022.2056775&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Tsai, C. C., Lin, S. S. J., &amp;amp; Ma, Y. H. (2013). Investigating the relationships among science teacher candidates&#39; self‐efficacy, learning value, achievement goals, and computer attitudes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22, 272 – 282.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; VanDerSchaaf, H. P., Daim, T. U., &amp;amp; Basoglu, N. A. (2023). Factors influencing student information technology adoption. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 70 (2), 631 – 643. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3053966&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Wang, X. D. (2021). Gao zhi sheng zi wo xiao neng gan yu ze ye xiao neng gan yan jiu—yi he fei zhi ye ji shu xue yuan wei li [A study on self‐efficacy and career‐choosing efficacy of vocational College students—A case study of Hefei Vocational and Technical College]. Journal of College Advisor, 13, 69 – 74. https://doi.org/10.13585/j.cnki.gxfdyxk.2021.05.012&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Wentzel, K. R. (2004). Understanding classroom competence: The role of social‐motivational and self‐processes. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 32, 213 – 241. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2407(04)80008-9&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Wentzel, K. R., Battle, A., Russell, S. L., &amp;amp; Looney, L. B. (2010). Social supports from teachers and peers as predictors of academic and social motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35 (3), 193 – 202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.002&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Williams, G. C., &amp;amp; Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self‐determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (4), 767 – 779. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.70.4.767&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;/ref&gt; &lt;aug&gt; &lt;p&gt;By Dan Wang; Qian Qiu; Lijuan Wang; Yu Jiang and Aihua Ran&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author&lt;/p&gt; &lt;/aug&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl1&quot; bibid=&quot;bib13&quot; firstref=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl2&quot; bibid=&quot;bib26&quot; firstref=&quot;ref2&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl3&quot; bibid=&quot;bib61&quot; firstref=&quot;ref3&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl4&quot; bibid=&quot;bib20&quot; firstref=&quot;ref4&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl5&quot; bibid=&quot;bib53&quot; firstref=&quot;ref5&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl6&quot; bibid=&quot;bib57&quot; firstref=&quot;ref6&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl7&quot; bibid=&quot;bib58&quot; firstref=&quot;ref7&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl8&quot; bibid=&quot;bib50&quot; firstref=&quot;ref9&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl9&quot; bibid=&quot;bib45&quot; firstref=&quot;ref10&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl10&quot; bibid=&quot;bib35&quot; firstref=&quot;ref11&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl11&quot; bibid=&quot;bib36&quot; firstref=&quot;ref12&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl12&quot; bibid=&quot;bib12&quot; firstref=&quot;ref13&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl13&quot; bibid=&quot;bib59&quot; firstref=&quot;ref14&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl14&quot; bibid=&quot;bib15&quot; firstref=&quot;ref16&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl15&quot; bibid=&quot;bib42&quot; firstref=&quot;ref17&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl16&quot; bibid=&quot;bib38&quot; firstref=&quot;ref18&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl17&quot; bibid=&quot;bib23&quot; firstref=&quot;ref19&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl18&quot; bibid=&quot;bib33&quot; firstref=&quot;ref20&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl19&quot; bibid=&quot;bib10&quot; firstref=&quot;ref21&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl20&quot; bibid=&quot;bib39&quot; firstref=&quot;ref22&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl21&quot; bibid=&quot;bib62&quot; firstref=&quot;ref24&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl22&quot; bibid=&quot;bib63&quot; firstref=&quot;ref25&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl23&quot; bibid=&quot;bib27&quot; firstref=&quot;ref26&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl24&quot; bibid=&quot;bib28&quot; firstref=&quot;ref28&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl25&quot; bibid=&quot;bib48&quot; firstref=&quot;ref29&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl26&quot; bibid=&quot;bib19&quot; firstref=&quot;ref30&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl27&quot; bibid=&quot;bib16&quot; firstref=&quot;ref31&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl28&quot; bibid=&quot;bib29&quot; firstref=&quot;ref33&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl29&quot; bibid=&quot;bib22&quot; firstref=&quot;ref34&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl30&quot; bibid=&quot;bib47&quot; firstref=&quot;ref36&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl31&quot; bibid=&quot;bib43&quot; firstref=&quot;ref37&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl32&quot; bibid=&quot;bib56&quot; firstref=&quot;ref44&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl33&quot; bibid=&quot;bib37&quot; firstref=&quot;ref45&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl34&quot; bibid=&quot;bib11&quot; firstref=&quot;ref49&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl35&quot; bibid=&quot;bib41&quot; firstref=&quot;ref50&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl36&quot; bibid=&quot;bib40&quot; firstref=&quot;ref51&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl37&quot; bibid=&quot;bib46&quot; firstref=&quot;ref52&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl38&quot; bibid=&quot;bib44&quot; firstref=&quot;ref53&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl39&quot; bibid=&quot;bib18&quot; firstref=&quot;ref54&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl40&quot; bibid=&quot;bib52&quot; firstref=&quot;ref55&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl41&quot; bibid=&quot;bib55&quot; firstref=&quot;ref58&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl42&quot; bibid=&quot;bib32&quot; firstref=&quot;ref60&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl43&quot; bibid=&quot;bib31&quot; firstref=&quot;ref62&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl44&quot; bibid=&quot;bib64&quot; firstref=&quot;ref64&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl45&quot; bibid=&quot;bib51&quot; firstref=&quot;ref65&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl46&quot; bibid=&quot;bib49&quot; firstref=&quot;ref66&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl47&quot; bibid=&quot;bib25&quot; firstref=&quot;ref67&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl48&quot; bibid=&quot;bib54&quot; firstref=&quot;ref68&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl49&quot; bibid=&quot;bib34&quot; firstref=&quot;ref74&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl50&quot; bibid=&quot;bib14&quot; firstref=&quot;ref76&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl51&quot; bibid=&quot;bib17&quot; firstref=&quot;ref78&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl52&quot; bibid=&quot;bib24&quot; firstref=&quot;ref83&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl53&quot; bibid=&quot;bib30&quot; firstref=&quot;ref84&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl54&quot; bibid=&quot;bib21&quot; firstref=&quot;ref86&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl55&quot; bibid=&quot;bib60&quot; firstref=&quot;ref87&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt;
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1447543
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Empowering the Digital Learner: Exploring the Relationship between Teacher Support, Autonomy in Technology, and Self-Efficacy in Chinese Vocational Colleges
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Dan+Wang%22&quot;&gt;Dan Wang&lt;/searchLink&gt; (ORCID &lt;externalLink term=&quot;http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9453-5609&quot;&gt;0000-0002-9453-5609&lt;/externalLink&gt;)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Qian+Qiu%22&quot;&gt;Qian Qiu&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Lijuan+Wang%22&quot;&gt;Lijuan Wang&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Yu+Jiang%22&quot;&gt;Yu Jiang&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Aihua+Ran%22&quot;&gt;Aihua Ran&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;SO&quot; term=&quot;%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22&quot;&gt;&lt;i&gt;Psychology in the Schools&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/searchLink&gt;. 2024 61(12):4483-4496.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles&lt;br /&gt;Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;EL&quot; term=&quot;%22Higher+Education%22&quot;&gt;Higher Education&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;EL&quot; term=&quot;%22Postsecondary+Education%22&quot;&gt;Postsecondary Education&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Student+Empowerment%22&quot;&gt;Student Empowerment&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22&quot;&gt;Teacher Student Relationship&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Personal+Autonomy%22&quot;&gt;Personal Autonomy&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22&quot;&gt;Technology Uses in Education&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Self+Efficacy%22&quot;&gt;Self Efficacy&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Vocational+Schools%22&quot;&gt;Vocational Schools&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22College+Freshmen%22&quot;&gt;College Freshmen&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Foreign+Countries%22&quot;&gt;Foreign Countries&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Information+Technology%22&quot;&gt;Information Technology&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22China%22&quot;&gt;China&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.23294
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085&lt;br /&gt;1520-6807
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In Chinese vocational colleges, students often avoid classroom challenges and lack persistent academic engagement. This was perceived as a deficiency in self-efficacy and a need for greater teacher-student engagement. The rapid advancement of information technology in educational contexts indicates that the dynamics among teacher support, technological autonomy, and self-efficacy will become crucial for learning outcomes. Hence, this study explored the relationship between teacher support and student self-efficacy, focusing on the mediating role of student autonomy in technology. A questionnaire survey administered to 606 first-year students was analyzed using Pearson&#39;s correlation coefficient and Process V3.3. The results showed that teacher support and student self-efficacy were moderately positively correlated (r = 0.464, p &lt; 0.01). However, technological autonomy appeared to be significantly positively correlated with teacher support (r = 0.368, p &lt; 0.01) and self-efficacy (r = 0.515, p &lt; 0.01). The results highlight the instrumental role of teacher support in enhancing student self-efficacy and the important role of technological autonomy as a mediating factor. These findings confirm the need for continuing social support and interactive roles between teachers and students to enhance student self-efficacy in higher education. Furthermore, technology should be leveraged to foster a conducive learning environment.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Note
  Label: Notes
  Group: Note
  Data: https://pan.baidu.com/s/1iIZRKn10BcbQGu8F1b-k_w?pwd=rorz#list/path=%2F&amp;parentPath=%2F
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1447543
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1447543
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.23294
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 4483
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Student Empowerment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Personal Autonomy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocational Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Freshmen
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Information Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: China
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Empowering the Digital Learner: Exploring the Relationship between Teacher Support, Autonomy in Technology, and Self-Efficacy in Chinese Vocational Colleges
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dan Wang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Qian Qiu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lijuan Wang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yu Jiang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Aihua Ran
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1520-6807
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 61
            – Type: issue
              Value: 12
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1