See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/279449096

Full article

Data · June 2015

CITATIONS READS
0 227

5 authors, including:

Gerald F. Burch Nathan Heller

University of West Florida Tarleton State University
41 PUBLICATIONS   381 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   245 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jana Burch

21 PUBLICATIONS   207 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gerald F. Burch on 30 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Tarleton State University]
On: 30 June 2015, At: 13:31
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Education for Business

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
[Link]

Student Engagement: Developing a Conceptual

Framework and Survey Instrument
a a a a a
Gerald F. Burch , Nathan A. Heller , Jana J. Burch , Rusty Freed & Steve A. Steed
a
Tarleton State University, Stephenville, Texas, USA
Published online: 25 Mar 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Gerald F. Burch, Nathan A. Heller, Jana J. Burch, Rusty Freed & Steve A. Steed (2015) Student
Engagement: Developing a Conceptual Framework and Survey Instrument, Journal of Education for Business, 90:4, 224-229,
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1019821

To link to this article: [Link]

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
[Link]/page/terms-and-conditions
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 90: 224–229, 2015
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1019821

Student Engagement: Developing a Conceptual

Framework and Survey Instrument
Gerald F. Burch, Nathan A. Heller, Jana J. Burch, Rusty Freed,
and Steve A. Steed
Tarleton State University, Stephenville, Texas, USA

Student engagement is considered to be among the better predictors of learning, yet there is
Downloaded by [Tarleton State University] at 13:31 30 June 2015

growing concern that there is no consensus on the conceptual foundation. The authors
propose a conceptualization of student engagement grounded in A. W. Astin’s (1984)
Student Involvement Theory and W. A. Kahn’s (1990) employee engagement research
where student engagement is built on four components: emotional engagement, physical
engagement, cognitive engagement in class, and cognitive engagement out of class. Using
this framework the authors develop and psychometrically test a student engagement survey
that can be used by researchers to advance engagement theory and by business schools to
monitor continuous improvement.

Keywords: cognitive engagement, emotional engagement, engagement, engagement survey,

physical engagement, student engagement

The need to investigate student engagement antecedents engagement, physical engagement, cognitive engagement
and outcomes is building. On one side, student engagement in class, and cognitive engagement out of class. We con-
continues to be a business education focal point (e.g., Lund clude the article with implications of this student engage-
Dean & Jolly, 2012; Magni, Paolino, Cappetta, & Proser- ment survey and provide recommendations for future
pio, 2013) based on the significant relationship with learn- studies to link student curriculum design and delivery to
ing outcomes (Gellin, 2003; Pike & Kuh, 2005; Pike, student engagement, and from student engagement to sig-
Smart, & Ethington, 2012). On the other side, business nificant learning outcomes.
schools associated with the Association to Advance Colle-
giate Schools of Business (AACSB) face the added chal-
lenge of demonstrating “continuous quality improvement” ISSUE IDENTIFICATION
in engagement, to include student engagement (AACSB,
2013, p. 2). Business faculty are therefore challenged to Student engagement is often considered to be among the
find ways to measure student engagement to demonstrate better predictors of student learning and development
continuous quality improvements, while simultaneously (Carini, Kuh, & Klein, 2006). As such, educators should
advancing student engagement research. refine their teaching by investigating engagement as a pri-
In this article we discuss the need to develop a stronger mary contributor to learning outcomes (Pike, et al., 2012).
conceptual base for student engagement and offer a theoret- Kuh (2003, p. 25) defines engagement as the time and
ically based, psychometrically proven student engagement energy students devote to educationally sound activities
scale that can be used at the class or course level. We use inside and outside of the classroom, and the policies and
Astin’s (1984) Student Involvement Theory and Kahn’s practices that institutions use to induce students to take part
(1990) employee engagement research to propose four the- in these activities. However, this definition is not shared by
oretically grounded student engagement factors: emotional all. Steele and Fullagar (2009) stated that there is no con-
sensus on the conceptualization and the conceptual founda-
tions of student engagement. This may be because recent
Correspondence should be addressed to Gerald F. Burch, Tarleton State
student engagement research has been dominated by studies
University, Department of Management, Box T0330, Stephenville, TX that focus on college activities that place university policies
76402, USA. E-mail: gburch@[Link] and practices related to college students as the focal point
 STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 225

(National Survey of Student Engagement, 2004, 2005). Steele and Fullagar (2009) initiated the move away from
Hu and Wolniak (2010) stated that “the effort by National the education-based theories by using Csikszentmihalyi’s
Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) has made it an (1975, 1990) flow theory and the Job Characteristics Model
axiom that what matters in student outcomes is student (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) to investigate the facilitators
engagement in college activities (Kuh, 2003)” (p. 751). and outcomes of student engagement. The results of their
This approach places more student engagement responsibil- empirical study show support for this move in education
ity on administrators and less on instructional faculty. settings. We propose that selecting only education or man-
The NSSE has a designed purpose, but it may not be the agement theories may limit the knowledge and understand-
best instrument for evaluating student engagement. The ing associated with both disciplines. Student Involvement
purpose of the NSSE is reported to be twofold (Gonyea & Theory (Astin, 1984) provides considerable explanation for
Kuh, 2009): to determine the amount of time and energy student engagement, but it needs to be combined with man-
students put into education and related activities and to agement theory. Kahn (1990) argued that engaged employ-
evaluate how institutions use resources to encourage stu- ees were those that were willing to invest emotional,
dents to engage in activities that increase the student’s physical, and cognitive resources in the performance of
learning experience. However, there are difficulties in using their roles. Education researchers have supported this con-
the NSSE to investigate student engagement. First, the ception of engagement containing three components where
NSSE was developed to compare universities to one cognitive engagement is displayed during the performance
Downloaded by [Tarleton State University] at 13:31 30 June 2015

another and therefore aggregates student engagement to the of the activity, emotional engagement is demonstrated
college/university level, thereby making it impossible to through enjoyable states of mind, and physical arousal or
investigate course/class level engagement. This aggregation innervation is displayed through physical engagement
affects educators, business schools, and researchers. Educa- (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Jackson & Marsh, 1996; Steele &
tors need to evaluate how class elements affect student Fullagar, 2009). Using this framework, we propose investi-
engagement, business colleges require course and class gating student engagement by using Kahn’s (1990) engage-
engagement data to demonstrate continuous improvement, ment components of emotional, physical, and cognitive
and researchers require more granular data to make general- investments. Returning to education theory, we propose
ized conclusions about the instruction to engagement and that cognitive engagement may occur either in class or out
engagement to learning relationships. Steele and Fullagar of class and, therefore, we propose four distinct student
(2009) stated that the NSSE is the most pervasive attempt engagement factors:
to study student engagement and is “too broad in scope and
is a survey of student educational experiences more than a Hypothesis 1 (H1): Student engagement consists of the sep-
theoretical explanation of student engagement” (p. 5). arate constructs of emotional engagement, physical
Based on these claims, we investigated the appropriateness engagement, cognitive engagement in class, and cogni-
of using decades of employee engagement research by tive engagement out of class.
assuming the job of a student is to learn.

STUDY 1: SURVEY DEVELOPMENT AND PILOT

TEST
CONCEPTUAL GROUNDING
The goal of this study was to develop a student engagement
Our desire to develop a theory-based student engagement
scale to measure the four proposed student engagement fac-
survey revealed two theoretical approaches currently being
tors. After developing the survey, a pilot test was conducted
used by student engagement researchers. The first adopts
and exploratory factor analysis was used to determine if the
theories primarily derived in learning and education, and
items represented the desired constructs.
the second is more firmly grounded in management theory.
We propose that an appropriate conceptual framework may
exist by combining the two approaches. Survey Development
Student Involvement Theory (Astin, 1984) claims that
educational policies and practices lead to student involve- We modified the Rich, LePine, and Crawford (2010) 18-
ment (investment of psychological and physical energy) item employee engagement scale to develop the initial sur-
resulting in student learning and personal development. vey. The Rich et al. scale consists of six items for three fac-
According to Astin, involvement is the investment of physi- tors (emotional, physical, and cognitive). We changed the
cal and psychological energy and student learning and per- context of the items to ensure students responded to their
sonal development are directly proportionate to the level of engagement toward a particular course or instructor
quantity and quality of involvement. The NSSE relies and separated cognitive engagement into an in-class and
heavily on Student Involvement Theory. out-of-class component. The 24 items are listed in Table 1.
 226 G. F. BURCH ET AL.

TABLE 1
Burch Engagement Survey for Students (BESS) Factor Loadings

Component Component Component Component

Item 1 2 3 4

Emotional engagement
I am enthusiastic about this class/course. .247 .221 .257 .798
I feel energetic when I am in this class/course. .333 .309 .164 .690
I am interested in material I learn in this class/course. .234 .213 .085 .763
I am proud of assignments I complete in this class/course. .143 .263 .324 .743
I feel positive about the assignment I complete in this class/course. .190 .297 .312 .707
I am excited about coming to this class/course. .438 .291 .240 .619
Physical engagement.
I work with intensity on assignments for this class/course. .273 .173 .762 .135
I exert my full efforts toward this class/course. .198 .196 .791 .329
I devote a lot of energy toward this class/course. .190 .206 .816 .154
I try my hardest to perform well for this class/course. .129 .190 .864 .180
I strive as hard as I can to complete assignments for this class/course. .158 .130 .816 .226
I exert a lot of energy for this class/course. .213 .252 .749 .136
Downloaded by [Tarleton State University] at 13:31 30 June 2015

Cognitive engagement: In class

When I am in the classroom for this class/course, my mind is focused on class discussion and .790 .232 .239 .294
activities.
When I am in the classroom for this class/course, I pay a lot of attention to class discussion and .846 .156 .224 .301
activities.
When I am in the classroom for this class/course, I focus a great deal of attention on class .844 .275 .218 .229
discussion and activities.
When I am in the classroom for this class/course, I am absorbed by class discussion and .783 .330 .211 .240
activities.
When I am in the classroom for this class/course, I concentrate on class discussion and .831 .308 .206 .192
activities.
When I am in the classroom for this class/course, I devote a lot of attention to class discussion .791 .345 .206 .169
and activities.
Cognitive engagement: Out of class
When I am reading or studying material related to this class/course, my mind is focused on .256 .749 .223 .323
class discussion and activities.
When I am reading or studying material related to this class/course, I pay a lot of attention to .277 .793 .266 .285
class discussion and activities.
When I am reading or studying material related to this class/course, I focus a great deal of .309 .823 .232 .247
attention on class discussion and activities.
When I am reading or studying material related to this class/course, I am absorbed by class .261 .810 .162 .319
discussion and activities.
When I am reading or studying material related to this class/course, I concentrate on class .315 .811 .251 .210
discussion and activities.
When I am reading or studying material related to this class/course, I devote a lot of attention to .263 .816 .231 .226
class discussion and activities.

Participants and Procedure eigenvalues and percent variance explained by each

component is represented in Table 2. The results from
The survey was administered to 214 undergraduate students the pilot test show that all six items from cognitive
at a mid-sized university in the southern United States dur- engagement in class loaded to component 1 (eigenvalue
ing the last two weeks of the fall semester, 2013. The D 13.47, 56.1% variance explained), all six items from
respondent’s average age was 21.7 years (s D 4.2 years), cognitive engagement out of class loaded to component
53% were women, and 27.6% were minorities. All partici- 2 (eigenvalue 2.36, additional 9.8% variance explained),
pants voluntarily rated their level of student engagement. all six items from physical engagement loaded to com-
ponent 3 (eigenvalue D 1.76, additional 7.3% variance
Results explained), and the six emotional engagement items
loaded to component 4 (eigenvalue D 1.51, additional
An exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation 6.3% variance explained). Coefficient alphas for the
was conducted for the pilot survey. The eigenvalues and four components were all above the recommended .7
scree plot suggest the four-component model is appro- threshold: emotional engagement, .91; physical engage-
priate. Factor loadings are presented in Table 1, while ment, .93; cognitive in class, .96; and cognitive out of
 STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 227

TABLE 2 engagement). Model two contained three factors (emo-

Student Engagement Survey Factor Loadings tional, physical, and cognitive), where cognitive engage-
Initial eigenvalues Rotation sum of squares loadings
ment included the six items from engagement in class and
six items for engagement out of class. The third model is
Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative the hypothesized four-factor model.
Component variance % variance % Several recommended goodness of fit measures were
1 13.47 56.13 56.13 5.15 21.44 21.44 analyzed, including comparative fit index (CFI), incremen-
2 2.36 9.83 65.95 4.99 20.77 42.21 tal fit index (IFI), root mean square error of approximation
3 1.76 7.33 73.28 4.79 19.97 62.18 (RMSEA), standardized root mean square residual
4 1.51 6.31 79.58 4.18 17.40 79.58 (SRMR), and ratio of chi square relative to the degrees of
freedom (L. Hu & Bentler, 1999). The following guidelines
for evaluating the acceptability of model fit were used: CFI
class, .96. Study 1 thereby supported our hypothesis that and IFI values above .90; RMSEA values close to .05;
engagement is composed of four distinct factors. SRMR values less than .08 (Bentler, 1990; Bollen, 1989; L.
Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2011), and the ratio of chi
square to degrees of freedom (x2/df) less than 5 (Wheaton,
STUDY 2: FOUR-FACTOR MODEL VALIDATION Muthen, Alwin, & Summers, 1977).
Downloaded by [Tarleton State University] at 13:31 30 June 2015

The one-factor model showed unacceptable fit where all

The purpose of Study 2 was to confirm the hypothesized fit indices were outside acceptable limits: CFI (.84), IFI
four engagement factors were appropriate for the student (.84), RMSEA (.23), SRMR (.10), and x2/df (19.9). The
engagement survey. The 24-item survey was administered three-factor model showed improvement over the one-fac-
to a second group of undergraduate students and confirma- tor model, but still had unacceptable limits for RMSEA
tory factor analysis was used to compare the four-factor stu- (.18) and x2/df (11.8). The four-factor model fit indices
dent engagement model to simplified models. were all acceptable: CFI (.99), IFI (.99), RMSEA (.07),
SRMR (.04), and x2/df (2.6). Based on these results, and
the chi-square difference test between the four-factor and
Participants and Procedure
other models (Dx2 D 480, df D 3), the one-and three-factor
models are rejected in favor of a four-factor model of stu-
Participants were 354 undergraduate students at a mid-sized
dent engagement, thereby supporting H1.
university in the southern United States. Respondent’s aver-
age age was 20.1 years (s D 3.2 years), 56% were women,
and 27.8% were minorities. All participants voluntarily
rated their level of student engagement. GENERAL DISCUSSION

Our contribution to engagement research is twofold. First,

Results our two studies have demonstrated that engagement is not a
single-dimension construct. Students can be emotionally
The proposed four-factor model was compared to a one-
engaged, physically engaged, cognitively engaged in class,
factor and three-factor model using the two-step approach
or cognitively engaged out of class. Understanding these
recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). The
four factors can help educators engage students. However,
results from the structural equation modeling (LISREL 9.1;
we propose that the greatest contribution of this research is
J€
oreskog & S€ orbom, 2013) are presented in Table 3. The
the development of a student engagement survey that is the-
first model evaluated a one-factor student engagement con-
oretically grounded and psychometrically validated. Mea-
struct where all 24 items loaded on to one construct (student
suring student engagement at the class or course level is
critical to developing strong curricula and improving deliv-
ery techniques. It is our desire that this new survey will
TABLE 3.
Results of Stage 2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (N D 354) advance class and course engagement research and practice
as quickly as the NSSE has advanced institutional engage-
RMSE SRM Dx2/Dd ment research.
Model CFI IFI A R x2/df f p

Model 1: One factor .84 .84 .23 .10 19.9 Implications for Theory
Model 2: Three factors .92 .92 .18 .06 11.8 470/3 .001
Model 3: Four factors .99 .99 .07 .04 2.6 480/3 .001 Student engagement research should consider student
Note: CFI D comparative fit index; IFI D incremental fit index;
engagement at the classroom and course level to directly
RMSEA D root mean square error of approximation; SRMR D standard- identify antecedents, moderators, and outcomes associated
ized root mean square residual. with learning. We propose grounding student engagement
 228 G. F. BURCH ET AL.

in Student Involvement Theory (Astin, 1984) and Kahn’s delivery. Subsequent research could begin to determine the
(1990) employee engagement research increases the likeli- importance of how each class activity affects student engage-
hood of developing research that allows educators to ment based on the delivery mode. In particular, we expect
improve student learning. With a solid measure of engage- emotional engagement to be dependent on the quantity and
ment, researchers can test the relationships between antece- quality of contact between students and instructors. Online
dents and all four student engagement factors. It is instruction and instruction in large classes significantly
expected that some antecedents will have greater influence reduce the potential for quality interactions which have been
on physical or emotional engagement, while others may shown to increase engagement (Klem & Connell, 2004).
drive cognitive engagement in or out of class. Obvious A second area for future researchers to investigate is
antecedents that should be investigated are classroom envi- how student individual differences affect the class environ-
ronment, learning activities, group projects, teaching style, ment to engagement and engagement to learning process.
delivery methods, and course material. The investigation of Individual personality, age, gender, ethnicity, race, apti-
these antecedents could expose moderators of the relation- tude, ability, motivation, prior experience, learning style,
ship between antecedents and engagement. Potential mod- and learning preference all have the ability to affect student
erators could be personal learning preferences (e.g., Kolb, engagement. These differences may affect the four student
1984), classroom demographics, group engagement factors, engagement factors differently. Looking at the student as
longitudinal factors, and generational factors. Simply open- an employee may also significantly open doors to use man-
Downloaded by [Tarleton State University] at 13:31 30 June 2015

ing the door to the study of personal differences may iden- agement research to investigate student actions. It is
tify factors that can serve as the basis for a discipline based, expected that students may perform their role of student in
prescriptive approach to teaching and learning. a manner similar to that of an employee. Management con-
structs of organizational commitment, intention to quit,
Practical Implications psychological contracts, as well as dozens of others may
help explain student engagement behaviors.
According to AACSB Standard 13 (AACSB, 2013), busi-
ness schools must “show clear evidence of significant
active student engagement in learning” (p. 37). Student CONCLUSION
engagement monitoring may therefore mirror current assur-
ance of learning programs, where student engagement is Educators have both the desire and requirement to facilitate
measured at the course level and aggregated to a level student learning. In the past, educators have altered course
where continuous process improvement goals can be estab- curriculum and delivery based on qualitative data to
lished and monitored. Our survey could allow universities increase student engagement and student learning. In this
to quickly monitor student engagement in specific courses, study we provided a theoretically grounded student engage-
make changes to curriculum design and delivery, and track ment scale and then psychometrically validated the measure
related outcomes. These steps, combined with the measure- using two separate studies. We propose that educators can
ment of outcomes, results in a continuous improvement use this scale to measure student emotional engagement,
cycle, which leads to higher order learning and better pre- physical engagement, cognitive engagement in class, and
pared students. cognitive engagement out of class. Educators that use the
results from this analysis could systematically alter the
Future Research learning environment with classroom activities that com-
plement individual differences and lead to highly engaged
We believe that future researchers should investigate how students.
the class environment affects engagement and how engage- On the other hand, student engagement research has suf-
ment influences learning. It is expected that class activities fered from the lack of theoretically grounded support for
such as simulations, games, and other active learning activi- the underlying factors that affect student learning. The
ties may strongly influence physical engagement. Similarly, results of our four-factor model of student engagement pro-
group projects, team teaching, individual projects, and vide empirical evidence that student engagement is not a
homework increase student cognitive engagement out of single component. Students can be emotionally engaged,
the class. Emotional and cognitive engagement in class physically engaged, cognitively engaged in class, or cogni-
may be also be related to group activities. Researchers tively engaged out of class. These four factors enable
should investigate these relationships to help instructors researchers to further investigate the link between the class-
further engage students. room and engagement and from engagement to learning.
Our study only assessed face-to-face instruction. Future We propose that this new model of student engagement
research should investigate the difference between face-to- will allow business schools to track engagement at the class
face, online, hybrid, and flipped classes to determine if stu- and course level and provide the details needed to develop
dent engagement differences exist based on mode of continuous improvement programs for student engagement.
 STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 229

REFERENCES J€oreskog, K. W., & S€orbom, D. (2013). LISREL for Windows [Computer
software], Skokie, IL: Scientific Software International.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
Bulletin, 103, 411–423. Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2013). teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of
Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accredi- School Health, 74, 262–273.
tation. Tampa, FL: Author. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation model-
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for ing (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
higher education. Journal of College Student development, 25, 297–308. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Astin, A. W. (1993). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and prac- Hall.
tice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. Phoenix, AZ: Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from
American Council for Education and Oryx Press. NSSE. Change, 35, 24–31.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psy- Lund Dean, K., & Jolly, J. P. (2012). Student identity, disengagement, and
chological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11, 228–243.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New Magni, M., Paolino, C., Cappetta, R., & Proserpio, L. (2013). Diving too
York, NY: Wiley Interscience. deep: How cognitive absorption and group learning behavior affect indi-
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and stu- vidual learning. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 12,
dent learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47, 1–32. 51–69.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, National Survey of Student Engagement. (2004). Student engagement:
Downloaded by [Tarleton State University] at 13:31 30 June 2015

CA: Jossey-Bass. Pathways to collegiate success. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Center for Postsecondary Research.
New York, NY: Harper & Row. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2005). Student engagement:
Gellin, A. (2003). The effect of undergraduate student involvement in criti- Exploring different dimensions of student engagement. Bloomington,
cal thinking: A meta-analysis of the literature, 1991–2000. Journal of IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.
College Student Development, 44, 746–762. Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). A typology of student engagement for
Gonyea, R. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2009). NSSE, organizational intelligence American colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education, 46,
and the institutional researcher. New Directions for Institutional 185–210.
Research, 141, 107–113. Pike, G. R., Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (2012). The mediating effects
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: of student engagement on the relationships between academic disci-
Addison-Wesley. plines and learning outcomes: An extension of Holland’s Theory.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance Research in Higher Education, 53, 550–575.
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc- Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement:
tural Equation Modeling, 8, 1–55. Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management
Hu, S., & Wolniak, G. C. (2010). Initial evidence on the influence of col- Journal, 53, 617–635.
lege student engagement on early career earnings. Research in Higher Steele, J. P., & Fullagar, C. J. (2009). Facilitators and outcomes of student
Education, 51, 750–766. engagement in a college setting. The Journal of Psychology, 142, 5–27.
Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Development and validation of a Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D., & Summers, G. (1977). Assessing
scale to measure optimal experience: The Flow State Scale. Journal of reliability and stability in panel models. In D. Heise (Ed.), Sociological
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18, 17–35. methodology (pp. 84–136). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

View publication stats