Key antecedents and consequences of study engagement among university business students in the UAE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To address a gap in research in non-Western context, this study examines the antecedents and consequences of academic engagement among undergraduate business students in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Building on the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) and Study Demands-Resources (SD-R) models, the study explores how instructor support, peer support, and study characteristics influence study engagement, and how study engagement subsequently affects psychological well-being, perceived employability, and academic dishonesty. Using an online questionnaire with validated scales, data were collected from 256 undergraduate business students in two major UAE universities. Descriptive statistics, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and structural equation modeling (SEM) were used to analyze the data and test the proposed hypotheses. The findings reveal that instructor support and study characteristics significantly enhance study engagement, which in turn positively impacts psychological well-being and perceived employability, while reducing dishonest academic behaviors. Contrary to prediction, peer support did not impact study engagement. Importantly, the results also demonstrate that study engagement mediates the effects of instructor support and study characteristics on the three outcome variables under investigation. These findings highlight the role of supportive academic environments and engaging coursework in enhancing student success. This study contributes to the limited research on business student engagement in non-Western contexts and offers practical implications for enhancing student outcomes in higher education, particularly in business programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".