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

ABSTRACT

Creating the conditions that foster student engagement, success and retention remains a perennial issue within the higher education sector. Traditionally satisfaction has been prioritised in assessing student success. A more expansive, holistic and ontological perspective of the student experience that takes into account who and what students are becoming is required. This study develops a holistic approach to measuring student engagement. It models and measures two antecedents to engagement, namely involvement and expectations, four dimensions of engagement, namely affective, social, cognitive and behavioural engagement, and their relative and differential impact upon five specific student and institutional success outcomes namely, institutional reputation, student wellbeing, transformative learning, self-efficacy and self-esteem. A survey with a sample of 952 tertiary students enrolled at a major Australian tertiary institution was employed. A structural model was then specified to assess the structural relationships between the constructs. The results show that student expectations and involvement have an important seeding role in student engagement. Affective engagement was the most important determinant of institutional reputation, wellbeing, and transformative learning. Behavioural engagement determined self-efficacy and self-esteem. Cognitive and social engagement were necessary but not sufficient conditions for student success.

KEYWORDS:

• Student engagement
• success
• retention
• measurement
• experience

Introduction

The notion of the ‘student experience’ in higher education has a long and rich history. Systematic measuring of the student experience has historically focused on pedagogical approaches, educational practices, and student evaluations of teaching practice (Grebennikov and Shah 2013). Measuring attribute level evaluations of the student experience has offered institutions the ability to quantify and monitor the extent to which student’s baseline expectations are being met by the institution. Student satisfaction is a key benchmark metric of institutional performance and it continues to be prioritised in government policy;

… as they are the most important clients of higher education, students’ own assessments of the service they receive at university should be central to our judgement of the success of our higher education system. Their choices and expectations should play an important part in shaping the courses universities provide and in encouraging universities to adapt and improve their service (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills UK 2009, 70)

Assessment of student satisfaction with the tertiary experience has been increasingly built into the practices of tertiary institutions and a range of international indices and barometers have now gained prominence e.g. National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE); National Student Survey (NSS); Student Experience Survey (SES). From an institutional perspective, systematic information on the tertiary experience enables providers to identify key areas of the tertiary experience that positively impact the student journey; focus resources into areas requiring enhancement; and monitor performance. There is however growing discontent around the use of such barometers which, in some instances, have been used for the purposes of; staff reduction (Machell and Saunders 2007); reductionist changes in teaching practice (Dill 2007); and the coaching of students in how to fill out surveys (Strathdee 2009) at the expense of enhancing the student experience and student engagement. The increased use of quantitative data in institutional rankings and league tables also fosters a culture of competition amongst institutions, as opposed to focusing on the way in which they can enhance overall tertiary outcomes (Grebennikov and Shah 2013).

In addition, satisfaction has been found to be an inadequate measure performance due to its normative nature (Brown and Mazzarol 2009; Giese and Cote 2000). Satisfaction assumes a ‘tabula rasa’ blank slate effect, that is, that all students enter their tertiary journey in equilibrium, with similar experiences, contexts, tacit and implicit expectations, affective responses, and objectives. This approach can lead to a hollowing out effect whereby ‘education’ itself is arbitrarily separated out from ‘holistic experience’ leaving the notion of ‘the student experience’ in a social, cultural and political vacuum which is ‘discontinuous with what has come before it and insulated from all that is around it’ (Sabri 2011, 664). These perspectives again reiterate the need for a more holistic approach to conceptualising the tertiary journey, and the way in which it shapes student outcomes, and indeed identity.

The complexity of the tertiary experience as a transformative force was perhaps first alluded to by Dewey (1938 [1997], 35) who pointed out that the tertiary experience ‘modifies the one who acts and undergoes’ and ‘covers the formation of attitudes that are emotional and intellectual’. The higher education literature has arguably recently returned to this conceptualisation that takes into account ontological perspectives of the tertiary experience and its contribution to who and what students are becoming (Barnacle and Dall’Alba 2017). This perspective has been discussed under the nomological frameworks of ‘student involvement’, ‘academic integration’, the ‘student experience’, ‘research-led teaching’ and ‘academic engagement’ (Fredricks and McColskey 2012; Khademi Ashkzari, Piryaei, and Kamelifar 2018; Trowler 2010) and more recently, ‘student engagement’, ‘student partnership’ and ‘student collaboration’ (Healey, Flint, and Harrington 2014; Kahu and Nelson 2018).

Student engagement has been linked to an array of traditional success factors such as increased retention (Khademi Ashkzari, Piryaei, and Kamelifar 2018); high impact and lifelong learning (Artess, Mellors-Bourne, and Hooley 2017); curricular relevance (Trowler 2010); enhanced institutional reputation (Kuh et al. 2006); increased citizenship behaviours (Zepke, Leach, and Butler 2014); student perseverance (Khademi Ashkzari, Piryaei, and Kamelifar 2018); and work-readiness (Krause and Coates 2008). It has also been linked to more subjective and holistic outcomes for students themselves including; social and personal growth and development (Zwart 2009); transformative learning (Kahu 2013); enhanced pride, inclusiveness and belonging (Wentzel 2012); student wellbeing (Field 2009).

This study responds to calls for research to investigate the dimensions that drive positive student evaluations of the tertiary experience (e.g. Kuh et al. 2006). It develops a revised, approach to measuring student engagement. In order to capture the holistic nature of engagement on transformative tertiary experiences, this paper statistically examines the interrelationships between two antecedents, namely student expectations and involvement and their role in shaping the four dimensions of engagement namely affective, social, behavioural and cognitive engagement. This paper also examines the interrelationships between the engagement dimensions, and key student and institutional success factors including student wellbeing, transformative learning, self-efficacy, self-esteem and institutional reputation. In doing so it identifies the varied impact that these dimensions have on key institutional and student success factors.

Theoretical framework and model development

Student engagement has been referred to in the literature as: ‘student involvement’, ‘academic integration’, the ‘student experience’, ‘research-led teaching’ and ‘academic engagement’ (Fredricks and McColskey 2012; Khademi Ashkzari, Piryaei, and Kamelifar 2018; Trowler 2010). Recent conceptualisations have begun to more consistently adopt the terminology of ‘student engagement’, ‘student partnership’ and ‘student collaboration’ (Healey, Flint, and Harrington 2014; Kahu 2013). Student engagement is now considered to be an overarching ‘meta-construct’ in which an eco-system of students, educators, service staff and institutions interact to create enriching tertiary experiences (Junco 2012; Kahu 2013; Trowler 2010; Zepke 2014). Reschly and Christenson (2012, 3) note that ‘academic time is important but not enough to accomplish the goals of education – development across academic, social-emotional, and behavioral domains. Student engagement is the glue, or mediator, that links important contexts’ such as student’s home lives, university, peers, and community to student success. As a meta-construct, Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004) note that engagement includes effort, persistence, concentration, attention; thoughtfulness and willingness to exert mental effort; and emotional responses such as interest, happiness, sadness, boredom and anxiety. In this way Blumenfeld et al. conceptualise student engagement as multidimensional and consisting of cognitive, emotional and behavioural dimensions.

Student engagement is also noted to manifest through both positive and negative valences (D’Errico, Paciello, and Cerniglia 2016). Positive valences are typically compiled of positive states such as enjoyment, pride, satisfaction and negative valences consisting of negative states such as anger, anxiety, frustration. Student engagement valences also vary in level of activation, polarity and intensity (Russell 1980). Research has demonstrated that positive engagement valence contributes to student success including attention, immersion and problem-solving (Pekrun and Linnenbrink-Garcia 2012). Conversely negative valences precipitate disengagement, avoidance and withdrawal and undermine students’ intrinsic motivation (Pekrun and Linnenbrink-Garcia 2012). Positive engagement is therefore central to academic success and achievement (De Carolis et al. 2019; D’Errico, Paciello, and Cerniglia 2016). See Table 1 for additional conceptualisations of engagement.

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

The most commonly accepted definition of student engagement is:

A multi-aspect construct that includes effort, resiliency, and persistence while facing obstacles (vigor), 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)

Drawing upon the literature within higher education, and psychology, we reposition student engagement as consisting of four distinct yet interrelated dimensions, namely behavioural engagement, affective engagement, cognitive engagement and social engagement (Bowden et al. 2017). We propose that these dimensions jointly motivate a student’s striving, persistence and retention within academic contexts (Klem and Connell 2004; Kuh 2001, 2003). We therefore re-define student engagement as multi-dimensional and as:

A student’s positive social, cognitive, emotional, and behavioural investments made when interacting with their tertiary institution and its focal agents (such as peers, employees and the institution itself).

The following section introduces the constructs examined in this study and develops the research hypotheses and structural model presented in Figure 1 to be examined.

Antecedents to student engagement

The shaping role of expectations

Pre-tertiary expectations are an important determinant of students’ engagement with their tertiary experience, as Bryson, Hardy and Hand (2009, 1) explain:

The conception of engagement encompasses the perceptions, expectations and experience of being a student and the construction of being a student.

Expectations capture the perceived difference between what is anticipated (expectations), and what is delivered (performance) (Bartikowski and Llosa 2004; Oliver 1980) leading to confirmation, positive disconfirmation or negative disconfirmation (Berry 1995; Teas 1981). The relationship between expectations and engagement is well established in the literature, as Jaakkola and Alexander (2014, 257) note;

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

… motivation to engage relates to their expectation of value outcomes

Most students enter university with a wide range of expectations, given their lack of prior experience with the higher education sector (Kuh et al. 2006) and these expectations impact their subsequent experience. For example, students who enter university lacking expectations to participate with academic staff and peers are likely to experience reduced behavioural engagement (Kuh et al. 2006). Students with positive academic expectations (e.g. expected grades, hours of study, motivation and intellectual challenge) are more likely to demonstrate enhanced cognitive engagement through perseverance when presented with challenging academic tasks (Crisp et al. 2009). Exceeding students’ expectations is likely to generate strong affective engagement, as positive disconfirmation creates feelings of delight, joy and surprise that create stronger emotional connections to the tertiary provider (Bowden 2013). Conversely, if students experience isolation and loneliness, it can deter their willingness to be socially engaged, as they perceive future attempts at social integration as tokenistic and ‘time wasting’ (Crisp et al. 2009; Kuh et al. 2006). As such, it is important to ensure that expectations are congruent with students’ experiences at university in order to generate high levels of behavioural, social, cognitive and affective engagement (Chipchase et al. 2017; Kuh et al. 2006). We therefore propose that;

H1: Expectations are positively related to behavioural engagement

H2: Expectations are positively related to affective engagement

H3: Expectations are positively related to social engagement

H4: Expectations are positively related to cognitive engagement

The shaping role of involvement

Involvement is defined as the ‘perceived relevance … based on inherent needs, values, and interests’ (Zaichkowsky 1985, 342). Involvement motivates one’s attention and commitment to the relationship (Brodie et al. 2011; Kinard and Capella 2006; Pansari and Kumar 2017) before, during and after exchanges (Bowden 2009; Dessart, Veloutsou, and Morgan-Thomas 2015). Involvement is a strong driver of student engagement (Mahatmya et al. 2012; Skinner and Pitzer 2012; Trowler 2010). Students who are not merely involved, but actively and multidimensionally engaged, are more likely to benefit from favourable academic, social and personal outcomes from their university experience (Kuh et al. 2008). According to Hu, Ching, and Chao (2012, 74) students;

… learn more when they are intensely involved in their education.

Involvement has also been found to drive behavioural engagement, as students’ involvement in ‘enriching educational experiences’ motivates their citizenship behaviours, strengthening their active participation at university (Skinner and Pitzer 2012). Involvement has strong links with the affective dimension of engagement, as the more involved a student is, the higher the propensity for the creation of intrinsic value (e.g. joy, elation, enjoyment, passion, pride) from their tertiary experience (Kahu 2013; Pansari and Kumar 2017). Lastly, involvement can motivate the social dimension of engagement, as increased involvement in the tertiary experience on campus and off campus, enhances feelings of connection, belonging, warmth, and relatedness between students and their peers, staff and the institution (O’Keefe 2013).

We therefore propose that;

H5: Involvement is positively related to behavioural engagement

H6: Involvement is positively related to affective engagement

H7: Involvement is positively related to social engagement

H8: Involvement is positively related to cognitive engagement

Conceptualising the four pillars of student engagement

Students may exhibit the four dimensions of engagement, namely behavioural, affective, social and cognitive simultaneously or in isolation. We address each of the dimensions of engagement in turn, next, before discussing their interrelationships with specific institutional and student success factors.

Behavioural engagement

The behavioural dimension of engagement is defined as the observable academic performance and participatory actions and activities (Dessart, Veloutsou, and Morgan-Thomas 2015; Schaufeli et al. 2002). Positive behavioural engagement is measured through observable academic performance including: student’s positive conduct; attendance; effort to stay on task; contribution; participation in class discussions; involvement in academic and co-curricular activities; time spent on work; and perseverance and resiliency when faced with challenging tasks (Kahu et al. 2015; Klem and Connell 2004). Behaviourally engaged students therefore exhibit proactive participatory behaviours through their involvement and participation in university life, and extracurricular citizenship activities (Ashkzari, Piryaei, and Kamelifar 2018). The behavioural dimension is the most frequently measured dimension within national barometers of the student experience (Kuh 2009; Zepke 2014).

Affective engagement

The affective dimension of engagement relates to the summative and enduring levels of emotions experienced by students and captures the degree of passion students feel towards the tertiary experience (Schaufeli et al. 2002; Bowden 2013). Affective engagement manifests through heightened levels of positive emotions during on campus and off campus activities, which may be demonstrated through happiness, pride, delight, enthusiasm, openness, joy, elation and curiosity (Klem and Connell 2004; Pekrun et al. 2002). Emotionally engaged students are able to identify the purpose and meaning behind their academic tasks, and social interactions (Schaufeli et al. 2002). D’Errico, Paciello, and Cerniglia (2016) also found that within e-learning, achievement emotions vary by learning task. These positive emotions were also found to correlate with behavioural engagement (D’Errico et al. 2018). Despite being central to engagement, the emotional component of students’ experiences has largely been under researched in the literature (Askham 2008; Kahu 2013; Pekrun et al. 2002). However, emotions are closely linked with students’ learning, achievement, life satisfaction, and health (Pekrun and Linnenbrink-Garcia 2012). Feelings of optimism, pride, joy, and enthusiasm can create a sustained psychological investment in the tertiary experience that extends beyond university (Pekrun et al. 2002).

Social engagement

The social dimension of engagement considers the bonds of identification and belongingness formed between students and their peers, academic staff, administrative staff and other pertinent figures in their tertiary experience (Pekrun and Linnenbrink-Garcia 2012; Wentzel 2012). It generates feelings of inclusivity, belonging, purpose, socialisation and connection to the tertiary provider (Eldegwy, Elsharnouby, and Kortam 2018; Goodenow 1993; Krause and Coates 2008; Vivek et al. 2014). Within the classroom, social engagement is characterised by the ‘unwritten’ rules of the learning environment, such as cooperation, listening to others, attending class on time, and maintaining a balanced teacher–student power structure (Coates 2007; Pekrun and Linnenbrink-Garcia 2012; Wentzel 2012). Outside the classroom, social engagement is displayed through students’ participation in community groups, study groups and student societies, where bonds are formed with others based on shared values, interests or purpose (Freeman, Anderman, and Jensen 2007; Wentzel 2012). Social engagement strengthens the sense of achievement students gain from their university experience (Finn and Zimmer 2012). Students who lack social engagement are more likely to experience loneliness, isolation (McIntyre et al. 2018) leading to reduced wellbeing (Hoffman et al. 2002; McIntyre et al. 2018).

Cognitive engagement

The cognitive dimension of engagement reflects the set of enduring and active mental states experienced with respect to focal objects of engagement (Vivek et al. 2014). This can include the level of positive attention and interest paid to tertiary communications, and time spent planning and organising academic pursuits (Zepke, Leach, and Butler 2010). Students that are cognitively engaged demonstrate an increased understanding of the value and importance of academic work through their perceptions, beliefs, thought processing and strategies employed during academic tasks (Ashkzari et al. 2018; Kahu 2013). As such, cognitively engaged students are more likely to demonstrate higher order thinking given their ability to be cognisant of the content, meaning and application of academic tasks (Christenson, Reschly, and Wylie 2012; Kuh et al. 2006). The following section explores the consequences of student engagement for specific student success factors.

The outcomes of student engagement

Institutional reputation

Institutional reputation is defined as ‘the overall perception … what it stands for, what it is associated with and what individuals may expect’ (Helgesen and Nesset 2007, 42). From a strategic perspective, a positive reputation can: increase profitability, improve perceptions of trustworthiness, reputability, honesty and quality (Alan, Kabadayi, and Cavdar 2018; Robinson et al. 2018; Selnes 1998; Sung and Yang 2008). A high-quality reputation can also positively frame pre-tertiary experiences through students’ feelings of belonging, pride, trust and interest towards the institution (Sung and Yang 2008). Importantly creating a positive institutional image generates a ‘halo’ effect extending to prospective students and employees, and future industry partners (Alan, Kabadayi, and Cavdar 2018). Engaged students are more willing to advocate as unofficial ‘spokespersons’ (Bowden 2011; Kahu 2013; Krause and Coates 2008) and this in turn creates more trustworthy perceptions of an institution (Beerli Palacio, Díaz Meneses, and Pérez 2002; Harrison-Walker 2001). Therefore, we propose that;

H9: Behavioural engagement is positively related to reputation

H10: Affective engagement is positively related to reputation

H11: Social engagement is positively related to reputation

H12: Cognitive engagement is positively related to reputation

Student wellbeing

In addition to traditional success factors such as institutional reputation, the tertiary experience can have an enhancing effect on students’ lives through enhanced wellbeing (Christenson, Reschly, and Wylie 2012). Wellbeing is defined by Field (2009, 9) as:

A dynamic state, in which the individual is able to develop their potential, work productively and creatively, build strong and positive relationships with others, and contribute to their community. It is enhanced when an individual is able to fulfil their personal and social goals and achieve a sense of purpose in society.

Wellbeing is a desirable outcome of student engagement, as it can alleviate stress, anxiety and depression which are increasingly reported amongst tertiary students (Hoffman et al. 2002; McIntyre et al. 2018); and, results in enhanced self-worth and efficacy, which are crucial for continued successful learning (O’Keefe et al. 2012). Purposeful engagement’ through strong social relationships is a key antecedent to psychological and subjective wellbeing. Thus, when students engage with others it provides them with a sense of purpose, pride, self-efficacy and control which in turn enhances their sense of wellbeing across a number of life domains including their health, happiness and social and community experiences (Anderson et al. 2013). We propose that;

H13: Behavioural engagement is positively related to wellbeing

H14: Affective engagement is positively related to wellbeing

H15: Social engagement is positively related to wellbeing

H16: Cognitive engagement is positively related to wellbeing

Transformative learning

Transformative learning aggregates how a student’s social and academic experiences during university impact their view of;

… themselves, the campus, the community, and the world as a whole. (Zwart 2009, 86)

Transformative learning is a highly reflective outcome of student engagement that considers the ‘humanisation’ or identity building that occurs through tertiary education (Taylor 2007; Bryson, Hardy, and Hand 2009). It both requires and creates a sense of maturity, independence and acceptance of oneself and others (Merriam 2004) and arises from deep engagement with multiple aspects of the tertiary experience (Taylor 2007; Zwart 2009). It is ‘one of the essential factors in a transformative experience’ (Taylor 2007, 179) and it provides students with a wider perspective on life that is more inclusive, permeable and integrated with others’ views (Merriam 2004). These benefits are realised at both an individual and collective level as they have a ripple effect throughout the tertiary ‘ecosystem’ to benefit other students, the institution and the community at large (Anderson et al. 2013). We posit that;

H17: Behavioural engagement is positively related to transformative learning

H18: Affective engagement is positively related to transformative learning

H19: Social engagement is positively related to transformative learning

H20: Cognitive engagement is positively related to transformative learning

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy is defined as ‘beliefs in one’s capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to meet given situational demands’ (Wood and Bandura 1989, 408). Engaged students are more likely to persevere through academic challenge, which results in higher self-belief (Chipchase et al. 2017; Kuh 2001; Schaufeli et al. 2002). Students appraise their level of self-efficacy based on; their personal beliefs (thoughts); actual performance; interactions with others, including peers and teachers’ persuasions or discouragement; physiological reactions; and environmental conditions (Chipchase et al. 2017; Gist and Mitchell 1992). Engaging and supportive tertiary environments that facilitate ‘mastery experiences’, opportunities for new ways of thinking, and opportunities for social connection and modelling enhance student self-efficacy and aid in positive self-belief (Chemers, Hu, and Garcia 2001; Gist and Mitchell 1992). Therefore, we posit that;

H21: Behavioural engagement is positively related to self-efficacy

H22: Affective engagement is positively related to self-efficacy

H23: Social engagement is positively related to self-efficacy

H24: Cognitive engagement is positively related to self-efficacy

Self-esteem

Self-esteem is defined as ‘a global personal judgment of worthiness that appears to form relatively early in the course of development, remains fairly constant over time, and is resistant to change’ (Campbell 1990, 539). It includes perceptions of; pride; control; success; efficacy; social respect and acceptance; teacher approval; and confidence in their ability to meet clear goals during tertiary study and beyond degree completion (Heatherton and Polivy 1991). Students’ who are intrinsically motivated to complete academic activities report higher levels of self-esteem compared with extrinsically motivated students who are ‘going through the motions’ (Shernoff et al. 2016). In order to have intrinsic motivation, students must be cognisant of the value, meaning and relevance of their tertiary experience, which is generated through affective, social, cognitive and behavioural forms of engagement (Khademi Ashkzari, Piryaei, and Kamelifar 2018; Kahu 2013). We propose that;

H25: Behavioural engagement is positively related to self-esteem

H26: Affective engagement is positively related to self-esteem

H27: Social engagement is positively related to self-esteem

H28: Cognitive engagement is positively related to self-esteem

Research methodology

A questionnaire was designed adapting well-accepted scales to measure the model constructs. Data was collected from students enrolled in the Business Faculty of one top ten ranked major metropolitan University in Australia. The specific Faculty has an approximate enrolment of 17, 000 students, and contains a broad range of disciplines. A sample of 952 respondents was collected from the Business school. The sample drawn for this study was broadly representative of the profile of the institution from which it was drawn. The institution has five Faculties namely, Business, Arts, Human Sciences, Medicine, and Science of which Business is proportionally the largest in terms of student enrolments. In 2018 the institution had total student enrolments of 44, 558 students enrolled comprised of 32, 115 (full time) and 12, 443 (part time) in 2018. A total of 51% of students enrolled were male, and 48% female. Domestic students accounted for 73% of the total enrolment. The Australian Higher Education sector in the first half of 2018 had a total enrolment of 1, 332, 822 students; 44% were male, 55% were female; 74% were enrolled full time and 25% part time; 71% were domestic students and 28% international (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018). Table 2 provides further details on the sampling frame. The questionnaire contained 11 constructs as identified in Table 3.

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)

The hypotheses were tested using a two-step structural equation modelling method (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). The psychometric properties of each measure were tested through CFA using AMOS 25. Analysis of the measurement model showed a good fit to the data: χ² (2481); df = 764; p = .00; comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.938; Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = 0.93; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.049; standardised root square mean residual [SRMR] = 0.05. Convergent validity was established for all scales used in this study. All standardised loadings on all constructs exceed the 0.50 criterion and were significantly different from zero at the 1% level. In addition, the average variance extracted estimates demonstrated that the measurement scales accounted for a greater proportion of explained variance than measurement error as the AVE statistics were above the >0.50 criterion value. Discriminant validity was examined according to Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) stringent test to establish separation between latent constructs and it was established for all construct pairs.

Results

Hypotheses testing

A structural equation modelling approach was used to test research hypotheses. The model established an acceptable fit, with χ² = 3323.93, (df = 790; p = .00), CFI = 0.91, NFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.05. A total of 24 hypotheses were supported. Four specific hypotheses were not supported; cognitive engagement and student wellbeing (H16); self-efficacy (H24) and self-esteem (H28) and behavioural engagement (H17) and transformative learning as shown in Table 4.

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.

The effect of students’ expectations on the four dimensions of engagement was of a moderate magnitude (β = 0.21–0.31, p = 000) suggesting that expectations are an important precursor to the development of engagement. Similarly, the effect of student involvement on the dimensions of engagement was moderate and even (β = 0.21–27, p = 000) across the elements of engagement except for affective engagement, for which it was found to be a strong driver (β = 0.51, p = 000). Thus, both expectations and involvement were found to both be important determinants of the development of holistic engagement.

Affective engagement was identified as the primary determinant of institutional reputation including students’ perceptions of its trustworthiness, and their willingness to recommend it to others (β = 0.46, p = 000). Affective commitment was also found to be the strongest determinant of student wellbeing (β = 0.40, p = 000), and transformative learning (β = 0.30, p = 000). The relationship between affective commitment and these success factors was stronger than the effect of social, cognitive and behavioural engagement. Conversely, behavioural engagement was found to be the primary and strong determinant of students’ self-esteem (e.g. confidence) (β = 0.49, p = 000) and self-efficacy (e.g. problem-solving ability and ability to manage challenges) (β = 0.58, p = 000). The results for social engagement suggest that it has a significant but weak impact upon student success and institutional success (β = 0.14–0.29, p = 000). Cognitive engagement was found to be a necessary, but not sufficient condition for institutional and student success. It had a significant but weak effect upon the establishment of institutional reputation (β = 0.09, p = 000) and transformative learning (β = 0.10, p = 000).

A comparative rival model was also developed and tested to examine whether or not the multi-dimensional holistic model of student engagement was a stronger conceptualisation and measurement approach to capturing student engagement than existing barometers. The competing model utilised the ‘learner engagement’ dimension and scales from the Australian Student Experience Survey, a national barometer measuring the student experience and a part of the Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching (QILT) survey program. These items captured the extent to which students felt a sense of belonging, prepared, and participated in tertiary life. The rival model results demonstrated poor goodness of fit (RMSEA = 0.07, CFI = 0.847; TLI = 0.838, p = 000).

Theoretical implications

Our findings form the basis of a revised holistic measurement approach for student engagement that accounts for the complexity of the dimensions of engagement; the multifaceted nature of the elements that constitute its process; as well as the differential effects that the dimensions of engagement have on key institutional and student success outcomes. It advances our current understandings of student engagement by firstly, attempting to empirically measure the pillars of engagement and by secondly, assessing their relative impact on key student and institutional success factors.

Firstly, the revised measurement approach to conceptualising and capturing student engagement advances current conceptualisations of engagement by underlining the importance higher education as a transformative experience (Rosenbaum et al. 2011, 5). Tertiary education serves several fundamental roles in that it shapes not only academic and career outcomes for students, but it also supports, fosters and develops students’ sense of self and identity (Anderson et al. 2013). Our study also supports the importance of the tertiary experience in shaping student wellbeing including their overall life satisfaction, and their emotional, social, financial, psychological, physical wellbeing. This is an important finding since individual wellbeing impacts upon collective societal wellbeing – in turn strengthening social networks, communities, neighbourhoods, cities and nations (Anderson et al. 2013). Lizzio and Wilson (2009, 70) support this broader societal level impact noting that student engagement: can also be understood as part of the emerging and related discourses of education for democracy and ‘universities as sites of citizenship.’

Secondly, this study has argued that student engagement needs to expand from conceptualisations that focus at the individual level on singular dimensions of student engagement in isolation, to examine the way in which the dimensions of engagement operate interdependently to shape student and institutional success outcomes (Reschly and Christenson 2012). This more holistic conceptualisation of engagement captures the deeper and more systemic effects that tertiary education has upon the lives of students and their experience of the tertiary environment (Kuh et al. 2006). This measurement approach also emphasises that models of engagement should incorporate the initiating and seeding role of pre-tertiary expectations and involvement, and the ways in which these factors act to precondition students’ propensities for positive student engagement. These antecedents act as continual reference points throughout the student experience; they directly impact upon the four dimensions of engagement shaping the extent to which students experience emotional, behavioural, cognitive and social engagement; and through these dimensions, they ultimately impact upon student and institutional success. Together we argue that the affective, social, cognitive and behavioural dimensions of engagement identified in this study, comprise the four pillars of tertiary student engagement. They are closely interrelated and when integrated effectively, they constitute critical success factors for tertiary institutions seeking to facilitate and enhance engagement opportunities. We propose that these four dimensions, when measured together, comprise an invisible tapestry of student engagement. They are closely interrelated and when stitched together and constitute critical factors for institutional and student success.

Thirdly this study advances the student engagement literature by examining how the four pillars of student engagement differentially impact upon student and institutional success. We find that students can be variably engaged across one or more of the dimensions, and that these dimensions have varying impacts upon the extent to which institutions can build a positive reputation, and support students in their transformative learning, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and personal wellbeing. We propose that each dimension contributes to enhanced engagement and a more profound and transformative tertiary experience which fostered positive dynamic and value-creating interactions and created rich opportunities for learning, sense-making, and proactive learning (Bensimon 2007). However, within our specific study context, we find that the most important dimensions for institutional measurement and monitoring were those of affective and behavioural engagement. Affective engagement through positive feelings and emotions, supported students’ sense of wellbeing and transformative learning. Students’ feelings of happiness, pride, delight, enthusiasm, openness, joy, elation and curiosity led to the establishment of a strong institutional reputation as indicated through positive referral and retention. Behavioural engagement empowered students to develop a strong sense of self-esteem and self-efficacy. This subsequently strengthened their sense of competence and enhanced their perceived work-readiness. The next section discusses the implications of these findings for tertiary practice.

Managerial implications

Involvement was identified as a positive antecedent of student engagement, reinforcing the importance of framing university as interesting, relevant, inspiring and meaningful. Involvement was the strongest driver of affective engagement, suggesting that highly involved students are more likely to feel happiness, pride and enthusiasm towards their institution. The development of collaborative partnerships between students and the institution prior to enrolment, and during enrolment in particular can facilitate engagement and reinforce feelings of attachment and commitment which help prevent students from becoming withdrawn and disengaged.

As an antecedent, expectations also positively shaped student engagement, highlighting the importance of understanding pre-tertiary expectations, especially given the heighted perceptions of risk and ambiguity that surround institutional selection for prospective students. Expectations start to influence engagement before students enrol and remain an important anchor for ongoing quality judgements of the tertiary experience. Expectations had the strongest impact on students’ affective engagement. This may be because when students’ expectations are exceeded, they are likely to experience positive feelings of surprise, delight and happiness. Understanding, monitoring and measuring the multi-focal sources, drivers and characteristics of these pre-tertiary expectations in relationship to the dimensions of engagement is essential to proactively shaping the student-institution relationship.

With regard to the four dimensions of student engagement, affective engagement was the primary determinant of institutional reputation, student well-being and transformative learning. The emotional connections students form with and among staff, peers, and the campus and institution at large establishes a superordinate goal, creates a positive perception of the institution, provides a heighten sense of well-being and facilitates transformative learning experiences. Tertiary institutions that facilitate emotional connectivity are more likely to be rewarded via student advocacy and recommendation enhancing institutional reputation. In addition, meaningful community participation enhances students’ sense of inclusion and ownership over their tertiary journey, and this generates positive feelings of pride which improves student wellbeing. Lastly, when students are emotionally engaged, they are more likely to be receptive to others’ ideas, opinions and, are more malleable in their own beliefs and perceptions enhancing transformative learning.

Emotional connection can be further enhanced at the strategic level through institutional ‘place identification’ communication strategies which use highly emotive and personalised imagery drawing upon students lived experiences, successes and achievements, memories and connections to the institution, their transformative growth, and careers. These approaches celebrate collective success and can be used to demonstrate that every student can have a personal victory during their tertiary pursuit. Emotional connection can also be facilitated through pre-tertiary connection through ‘relationship seeding’ initiatives such as by giving students a voice and allowing them to express their interests and strengths in personal statements prior to enrolment. Institutions can respond to these with personalised communications which provide future students with increased awareness of ‘connection’ points through institutional activities and events; and opportunities to emotionally connect to the institution and to others through membership. These approaches knit individual experiences into the collective core of institutional belonging, facilitate pride and passion, support ambitions and foster a collective, connected and unified emotional identity.

Our findings concerning the pivotal role of behavioural engagement on the remaining two student success dimensions of self-esteem and self-efficacy affirm the importance of the more functional dimensions of engagement. The findings point to the need for institutions to continue to facilitate opportunities for and monitor indicators of behavioural engagement such as participation in campus life; attendance (or view rates in digital environs); effort to stay on task; contribution; participation in class discussions; involvement in academic and co-curricular activities; time spent on work; and perseverance and resiliency when faced with challenging tasks.

Behavioural engagement was found to strongly drive students’ sense of self-efficacy and self-esteem, reinforcing student’s belief in their ability to achieve goals, and create positive evaluations of self-worth. As such, this dimension reflects the autonomous aspects of university in the achievement of personal goals. The strong relationship between behavioural engagement and self-efficacy is not surprising, as students largely appraise self-efficacy based on their performance on academic tasks. Therefore, students who dedicate appropriate time to mastering skills and tackling tertiary learning demands with a motivation to succeed are more likely to report higher levels of self-efficacy, career-readiness and employability.

Behavioural engagement can be further enhanced through fostering an organisational culture that aims to encourage students’ effort, persistence, reliance and achievement at all student touchpoints (i.e. in the classroom, on online platforms, on campus). It may also be enhanced through positioning academic tasks, coursework and involvement in extra-curricular activities as a series of positive and worthwhile ‘challenges’ to be tackled that will provide life-long skills. An institutional vision that focuses on positioning the tertiary experience as an opportunity for personal growth and development, alongside other outcomes such as grades and GPA’s is essential.

Perhaps somewhat surprising in nature, cognitive engagement, that is students’ intensity of immersion in their educational experience was found to be much weaker and more diffuse in its impact on engagement. In this sense, it is a necessary but not sufficient condition for holistic engagement. Cognitive engagement operates as a core requirement of the tertiary journey however, this study suggests that it does not provide for the key point of differentiation within the student experience. Cognitive engagement should of course continue to be prioritised given its core role in the tertiary experience and given that graduates become the workforce of the future. Strategies to enhance this dimension should focus on enhancing students’ ambitions through transformative learning experiences, and developing their knowledge, enterprise, collaborative, and employability competencies and skill sets. Institutions should focus on inspiring agency for all students and giving access to knowledge advancement for all students.

Social engagement, which reflects the bonds of identification and belongingness formed between students, staff and the broader tertiary experience, was found to be a weak determinant of institutional and student success. Nonetheless, social connection is a necessary element of holistic student engagement. Social engagement can create more inclusive campus environments, as it fosters equality between teachers and students, and helps relax the hierarchical relationships stemming from the often perceived ‘ivory tower’ effect of academic culture. The very act of engaging students from a relational perspective builds trust, confidence and empowerment and fosters positive and proactive habits of mind and heart that facilitate continuous learning, personal growth and development, and increased educational and emotional commitment. It is important to recognise that social engagement does not merely begin at ‘enrolment on-boarding’. It commences with pre-connection, buy in and empowerment of the student voice during the upper years of secondary school, is enhanced through the tertiary experience, and continues post-tertiary as students aspire to and achieve their career goals.

For the recommendations of this study to be implemented effectively they will need to be adapted to fit with the institution’s strategic vision for student engagement and connected communities. They will also need to be tailored to fit with other potentially competing priorities. If, as is commonly the case, institutional research is identified as a top tier priority, then this may leave students questioning their level of (de)prioritisation by the institution. In light of this potential perception it is important to reinforce an institution-wide understanding that students inherently experience research through teaching and engagement with the broader campus culture and that a student-centric vision is required.

This study represents a preliminary attempt to develop a holistic metric approach to student engagement. Certainly, further research addressing the complexities of student engagement and its effects will be needed to explore more deeply the way in which engagement operates. Future research should examine the extent to which the metric approach and results are generalisable across different segments of students, from low to high SES, domestic and international students, undergraduate and postgraduate students; different Faculties within institutions; as well as across cross-cultural contexts. It should also examine expressions of both positive and negative valences of engagement across various cohorts such as young learners, adult learners, and online and offline modes of teaching delivery and their relationship to the specific student success and institutional success factors identified. This research should also attempt to examine the way in which specific attributes of the tertiary experience contribute to the four global dimensions of engagement.

Importantly, any metric approaches and subsequent policies developed to support student engagement and ultimately student success must necessarily incorporate a top-down supported systematic quality assurance programme with monitoring and measuring milestones to ensure that holistic student engagement is realised. Put simply, institutions cannot simply expect students to engage themselves. Rather, the onus is on institutions to understand the determinants of engagement, and to then proactively translate this understanding into effective ‘experience design’ which fosters the conditions that allow diverse student populations to mutually interact and engage;

Most institutions can do far more than they are doing at present to implement interventions that will change the way students approach college and what they do after they arrive. The real question is whether we have the will to more consistently use what we know to be promising policies and effective educational practices in order to increase the odds that more students get ready, get in, and get through.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.