1887
Volume 2025, Issue 2
  • EISSN: 2223-506X

Abstract

This study investigates Ph.D. student engagement at Hamad Bin Khalifa University (HBKU) using the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) to examine how autonomy, competence, and relatedness within SDT relate to Ph.D. students’ engagement. Employing a quantitatively dominant mixed-methods design, 49 Ph.D. students, encompassing current, graduated, and withdrawn individuals, and 15 Ph.D. supervisors across five different colleges at HBKU completed an online survey questionnaire. Additionally, qualitative data were collected through open-ended survey items, which enriched the quantitative findings by providing further insights into participants’ experiences. The findings revealed that perceived relatedness was the strongest predictor of Ph.D. students’ engagement, followed by autonomy and competence. Supervisor perspectives provided additional confirmation of these results, highlighting the critical role of autonomy, quality, and frequency of feedback, and robust social relationships in fostering Ph.D. engagement. The study’s outcomes underscore the necessity of tailored, college-specific strategies to accommodate the diverse cultural, professional, and linguistic backgrounds of Ph.D. students. The implications of these findings include recommendations for institutional interventions designed to enhance the psychological well-being, engagement levels, and overall academic success of Ph.D. students. This study advances the literature on Ph.D. student engagement by extending the application of SDT to a non-Western higher education context.

© 2025 Author(s), licensee HBKU Press.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5339/connect.2025.9
2025-11-30
2025-12-05

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/connect/2025/2/connect.2025.issue2.9.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5339/connect.2025.9&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Bray A, Banks J, Devitt A, Ní Chorcora E. Connection before content: Using multiple perspectives to examine student engagement during Covid-19 school closures in Ireland. Irish Educational Studies. 2021;40:(2):431–441. doi: 10.1080/03323315.2021.1917444
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Englund H, Stockhult H, Du Rietz S, Nilsson A, Wennblom G. Learning-environment uncertainty and students’ approaches to learning: a self-determination theory perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 2022;66:(4):559–573. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2022.2042734
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Coates H, McCormick AC (eds). Engaging university students: International insights from system-wide studies. Vol. 1:. Singapore: Springer; 2014.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Reeve J. A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In: Christenson SL, Reschly AL, Wylie C (eds). Handbook of research on student engagement. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2012. p. 149–172.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Aguilera-Hermida AP. College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to COVID-19. International Journal of Educational Research Open. 2020;1:100011. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100011
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Publications; 2017.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press; 1985.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist. 2000;55:(1):68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Baeten M, Dochy F, Struyven K, Parmentier E, Vanderbruggen A. Student-centred learning environments: an investigation into student teachers’ instructional preferences and approaches to learning. Learning Environments Research. 2016;19:(1):43–62. doi: 10.1007/s10984-015-9190-5
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Laird TF, Shoup R, Kuh GD, Schwarz MJ. The effects of discipline on deep approaches to student learning and college outcomes. Research in Higher Education. 2008;49:(6):469–494. doi: 10.1007/s11162-008-9088-5
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Öhrstedt M, Lindfors P. Students’ adoption of course-specific approaches to learning in two parallel courses. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2016;31:(2):209–223. doi: 10.1007/s10212-015-0256-7
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Wang MT, Fredricks J, Ye F, Hofkens T, Linn JS. Conceptualization and assessment of adolescents’ engagement and disengagement in school: a multidimensional school engagement scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2019;35:(4):591–606. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000431
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Deci EL, Ryan RM. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry. 2000;11:(4):227–268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Gagné M, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2005;26:(4):331–362. doi: 10.1002/job.322
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Deci EL, Ryan RM. The” what” and” why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry. 2000 Oct 1;11:(4):227-68. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Connell JP, Wellborn JG. Self-processes and development. In: Gunnar MR, Sroufe LA (eds). Self processes and development: the Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology. Vol. 23. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1991. p. 43–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Sakurai Y, Pyhältö K. Understanding students’ academic engagement in learning amid globalising universities [Unpublished manuscript]. Helsinki: University of Helsinki; 2013.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Zaqout F, Abbas M. Towards a model for understanding the influence of the factors that stimulate university students’ engagement and performance in knowledge sharing. Library Review. 2012;61:(5):345–361. doi: 10.1108/00242531211280478
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Commission on Higher Education (CHED). CMO No. 6, series of 2022: Sustaining flexible learning in higher education: an addendum to CMO No. 4, series of 2020 [Memorandum]. Manila: CHED; 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Magsambol B. CHED: There’s no going back, “flexible learning will be new norm.” Rappler; 2021 May 22.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Okati-Aliabad H, Nazri-Panjaki A, Mohammadi M, Nejabat EMoghaddam A. Determinants of diabetes self-care activities in patients with type 2 diabetes based on self-determination theory. Acta Diabetologica. 2024;61:(3):297–307. doi: 10.1007/s00592-023-02186-w
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Khlaif ZN, Salha S, Kouraichi B. Emergency remote learning during COVID-19 crisis: students’ engagement. Education and Information Technologies. 2021;26:(6):7033–7055. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10566-4
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Oyedotun TD. Sudden change of pedagogy in education driven by COVID-19: perspectives and evaluation from a developing country. Research in Globalization. 2020;2:100029. doi: 10.1016/j.resglo.2020.100029
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Rahiem MDH. The emergency remote learning experience of university students in Indonesia amidst the COVID-19 crisis. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research. 2020;19:(6):1–26. doi: 10.26803/ijlter.19.6.1
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Serhan D. Transitioning from face-to-face to remote learning: Students’ attitudes and perceptions of using Zoom during COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science. 2020;4:(4):335–342.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Argosino F. Parents, students voice opinions on limited face-to-face classes. Manila Bulletin; 2021 Oct 29.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Asanov I, Flores F, McKenzie D, Mensmann M, Schulte M. Remote-learning, time-use, and mental health of Ecuadorian high-school students during the COVID-19 quarantine. World Development. 2021;138:105225. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105225
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Peluso DL, Carleton RN, Asmundson GJG. Depression symptoms in Canadian psychology graduate students: do research productivity, funding, and the academic advisory relationship play a role? Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. 2011;43:(2):119–127. doi: 10.1037/a0022624
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Pyhältö K, Toom A, Stubb J, Lonka K. Challenges of becoming a scholar: a study of doctoral students’ problems and well-being. ISRN Education. 2012;2012:934941. doi: 10.5402/2012/934941
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Litalien D, Guay F. Dropout intentions in PhD studies: a comprehensive model based on interpersonal relationships and motivational resources. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2015;41:218–231. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.03.004
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Eccles JS, Wigfield A. Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology. 2002;53:(1):109–132. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Dweck CS. Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist. 1986;41:(10):1040–1048. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Overview of self-determination theory: an organismic dialectical perspective. In: Deci EL, Ryan RM (eds). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press; 2002. p. 3–33.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Vansteenkiste M, Niemiec CP, Soenens B. The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: an historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. In: Urdan TC, Karabenick SA (eds). The decade ahead: theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement. Vol. 16. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing; 2010. p. 105–165.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH. School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research. 2004;74:(1):59–109. doi: 10.3102/00346543074001059
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Niemiec CP, Ryan RM. Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education. 2009;7:(2):133–144. doi: 10.1177/1477878509104318
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5339/connect.2025.9
Loading
Unveiling Ph.D. students’ engagement at Hamad Bin Khalifa University: A self-determination theory perspective
QScience Connect 2025, 9 (2025); https://doi.org/10.5339/connect.2025.9
/content/journals/10.5339/connect.2025.9
/content/journals/10.5339/connect.2025.9
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Ph.D. student engagement, self-determination theory, autonomy, competence, relatedness, higher education, Ph.D. study

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error