The four pillars of tertiary student engagement and success: a holistic measurement approach

Figures & data

Table 1. Selected definitions of student engagement.

Definition	Source	Orientation
The extent to which students are engaging in activities that higher education research has shown to be linked with high-quality learning outcomes	Krause and Coates (2008)	Behavioural
The concept of student engagement is based on the constructivist assumption that learning is influenced by how an individual participates in educationally purposeful activities	Coates (2007)	Behavioural
Student engagement is concerned with the interaction between the time, effort and other relevant resources invested by both students and their institutions	Trowler (2010)	Behavioural
An observable, action-orientated subtype (behavioural) and two internal ones (cognitive and affective engagement) but then is differentiated from motivation as engagement being action (observable behaviour), motivation as intent (internal)	Christenson, Reschly and Wylie (2012)	Psychological, tricomponent
A multi-aspect construct that include effort, resiliency, and persistence while facing obstacles (vigour), passion, inspiration, and pride in academic learning (dedication), and involvement in learning activities and tasks (absorption) as the main facets of this construct	Schaufeli et al. (2002)	Psychological, tricomponent
The extent to which students feel welcomed by institutional environments and climates	Johnson et al. (2007)	Socio-cultural
The extent to which students succeed in integrating and the amount of social support received	Eggens, Van der Werf, and Bosker (2008)	Socio-cultural
A metaconstruct that includes; Behavioural engagement includes involvement in academic and social or extracurricular activities; positive conduct, absence of disruptive behaviours; effort, persistence, concentration, attention; participation in governance. Cognitive engagement incorporates thoughtfulness and willingness to exert the effort. Emotional engagement encompasses students’ affective reactions in the classroom, including interest, boredom, happiness, sadness, and anxiety	Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004)	Holistic/transformational

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the four pillars of student engagement.

Table 2. Demographic profile.

Attributes	Category	Frequency
Gender	Male	41.9%
	Female	58.1%
Age	<25	86.3%
	25+	13.7%
Undergraduate	Yes	81.6%
	No	18.4%
Domestic	Domestic	62.7%
	International	37.3%
Indigenous	Yes	2.1%
	No	97.9%
Full time	Full time	91.4%
	Part time	8.6%

Table 3. Scales to measure constructs.

Construct	Scale(s)
Expectations	Gustafsson, Johnson, and Roos (2005)
Involvement	Zaichkowsky (1985)
Affective engagement	Schaufeli et al. (2002), Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie (2014)
Cognitive engagement	Vivek et al. (2014)
Social engagement	Vivek et al. (2014)
Behavioural engagement	Schaufeli et al. (2002)
Self-efficacy	Schwarzer et al. (1997)
Self-esteem	Heatherton and Polivy (1991)
Transformative learning	Brock (2010)
Student wellbeing	Sirgy et al. (2008)
Institutional reputation	Veloutsou and Moutinho (2009)

Table 4. Results.

Hypotheses	Relationship between constructs	Path weight
H1	Expectations > behavioural engagement	0.28***
H2	Expectations > affective engagement	0.31***
H3	Expectations > social engagement	0.21***
H4	Expectations > cognitive engagement	0.27***
H5	Involvement > behavioural engagement	0.24***
H6	Involvement > affective engagement	0.51***
H7	Involvement > social engagement	0.21***
H8	Involvement > cognitive engagement	0.27***
H9	Behavioural engagement > reputation	0.05***
H10	Affective engagement > reputation	0.46***
H11	Social engagement > reputation	0.23***
H12	Cognitive engagement > reputation	0.09***
H13	Behavioural engagement > wellbeing	0.24***
H14	Affective engagement > wellbeing	0.40***
H15	Social engagement > wellbeing	0.29***
H16 not supported	Cognitive engagement > wellbeing	−0.04^
H17 not supported	Behavioural engagement > transformative learning	0.05^
H18	Affective engagement > transformative learning	0.30***
H19	Social engagement > transformative learning	0.16***
H20	Cognitive engagement > transformative learning	0.10***
H21	Behavioural engagement > self-efficacy	0.58***
H22	Affective engagement > self-efficacy	0.14***
H23	Social engagement > self-efficacy	0.22***
H24 not supported	Cognitive engagement > self-efficacy	−0.06^
H25	Behavioural engagement > self-esteem	0.49***
H26	Affective engagement > self-esteem	0.33***
H27	Social engagement > self-esteem	0.14***
H28 not supported	Cognitive engagement > self-esteem	−0.01^

***Denotes significance at the 0.05 level; ^ not significant.

Krause, K. L., and H. Coates. 2008. “Students’ Engagement in First-Year University.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 33 (5): 493–505.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Coates, H. 2007. “A Model of Online and General Campus-Based Student Engagement.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 32 (2): 121–141.

 Google Scholar

Trowler, V. 2010. “Student Engagement Literature Review.” The Higher Education Academy 11: 1–15.

 Google Scholar

Christenson, S. L., A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie, eds. 2012. Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

 Google Scholar

Schaufeli, W. B., M. Salanova, V. González-Romá, and A. B. Bakker. 2002. “The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach.” Journal of Happiness Studies 3 (1): 71–92.

 Google Scholar

Johnson, D. R., M. Soldner, J. B. Leonard, P. Alvarez, K. K. Inkelas, H. T. Rowan-Kenyon, and S. D. Longerbeam. 2007. “Examining Sense of Belonging Among First-Year Undergraduates from Different Racial/Ethnic Groups.” Journal of College Student Development 48 (5): 525–542.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Eggens, L., M. Van der Werf, and R. Bosker. 2008. “The Influence of Personal Networks and Social Support on Study Attainment of Students in University Education.” Higher Education 55 (5): 553–573.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fredricks, J., P. Blumenfeld, and A. Paris. 2004. “School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence.” Review of Educational Research 74 (1): 59–109.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gustafsson, A., M. D. Johnson, and I. Roos. 2005. “The Effects of Customer Satisfaction, Relationship Commitment Dimensions, and Triggers on Customer Retention.” Journal of Marketing 69 (4): 210–218.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zaichkowsky, J. L. 1985. “Measuring the Involvement Construct.” Journal of Consumer Research 12 (3): 341–352.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hollebeek, L. D., M. S. Glynn, and R. J. Brodie. 2014. “Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development and Validation.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 28 (2): 149–165.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vivek, S. D., S. E. Beatty, V. Dalela, and R. M. Morgan. 2014. “A Generalized Multidimensional Scale for Measuring Customer Engagement.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 22 (4): 401–420.

 Google Scholar

Schwarzer, R., J. Bäßler, P. Kwiatek, K. Schröder, and J. X. Zhang. 1997. “The Assessment of Optimistic Self-beliefs: Comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese Versions of the General Self-efficacy Scale.” Applied Psychology 46 (1): 69–88.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Heatherton, T. F., and J. Polivy. 1991. “Development and Validation of a Scale for Measuring State Self-Esteem.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60 (6): 895–910.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brock, S. E. 2010. “Measuring the Importance of Precursor Steps to Transformative Learning.” Adult Education Quarterly 60 (2): 122–142.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sirgy, M. J., D. J. Lee, S. Grzeskowiak, J. C. Chebat, J. S. Johar, A. Hermann, S. Hassan, I. Hegazy, A. Ekici, D. Webb, C. Su. 2008. “An Extension and Further Validation of a Community-based Consumer Well-being Measure.” Journal of Macromarketing 28 (3): 243–257.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Veloutsou, C., and L. Moutinho. 2009. “Brand Relationships Through Brand Reputation and Brand Tribalism.” Journal of Business Research 62 (3): 314–322.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar