Student Engagement: Developing a Conceptual Framework and Survey Instrument

REFERENCES

• Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2013). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accreditation. Tampa, FL: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student development, 25, 297–308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Astin, A. W. (1993). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. Phoenix, AZ: American Council for Education and Oryx Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley Interscience.
   Google Scholar
• Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47, 1–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Gellin, A. (2003). The effect of undergraduate student involvement in critical thinking: A meta-analysis of the literature, 1991–2000. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 746–762.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonyea, R. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2009). NSSE, organizational intelligence and the institutional researcher. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141, 107–113.
   Google Scholar
• Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 1–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, S., & Wolniak, G. C. (2010). Initial evidence on the influence of college student engagement on early career earnings. Research in Higher Education, 51, 750–766.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The Flow State Scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18, 17–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jöreskog, K. W., & Sörbom, D. (2013). LISREL for Windows [Computer software], Skokie, IL: Scientific Software International.
   Google Scholar
• Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74, 262–273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change, 35, 24–31.
   Google Scholar
• Lund Dean, K., & Jolly, J. P. (2012). Student identity, disengagement, and learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11, 228–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magni, M., Paolino, C., Cappetta, R., & Proserpio, L. (2013). Diving too deep: How cognitive absorption and group learning behavior affect individual learning. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 12, 51–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Survey of Student Engagement. (2004). Student engagement: Pathways to collegiate success. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.
   Google Scholar
• National Survey of Student Engagement. (2005). Student engagement: Exploring different dimensions of student engagement. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.
   Google Scholar
• Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). A typology of student engagement for American colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education, 46, 185–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pike, G. R., Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (2012). The mediating effects of student engagement on the relationships between academic disciplines and learning outcomes: An extension of Holland's Theory. Research in Higher Education, 53, 550–575.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steele, J. P., & Fullagar, C. J. (2009). Facilitators and outcomes of student engagement in a college setting. The Journal of Psychology, 142, 5–27.
   Google Scholar
• Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D., & Summers, G. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. In D. Heise (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 84–136). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar