development and validation of student engagement scale in the indian context

http://gbr.sagepub.com/Global Business Review

http://gbr.sagepub.com/content/15/3/505The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0972150914535137

2014 15: 505Global Business ReviewAnup K. Singh and Shalini Srivastava

Development and Validation of Student Engagement Scale in the Indian Context

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Global Business ReviewAdditional services and information for

http://gbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://gbr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://gbr.sagepub.com/content/15/3/505.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Aug 27, 2014Version of Record >>

at University of Exeter on September 2, 2014gbr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Exeter on September 2, 2014gbr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://gbr.sagepub.com/

http://gbr.sagepub.com/content/15/3/505

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://gbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://gbr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://gbr.sagepub.com/content/15/3/505.refs.html

http://gbr.sagepub.com/content/15/3/505.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Military-Madrasa-Mullah Complex 505

India Quarterly, 66, 2 (2010): 133–149

A Global Threat 505Article

Development and Validation of Student Engagement Scale in the Indian Context

Anup K. SinghShalini Srivastava

Abstract

This article reports the development and validation of a student engagement scale (SES), as tested on a sample of 166 respondents from a management school located in the National Capital Region (NCR). The SES is a 41-item self-reporting questionnaire that measures three facets of student engagement namely, sense of belonging, individual engagement and collaborative engagement. The sub-scales had high internal consistency and test-retest reliability. All the three dimensions of student engagement were positively and significantly related to management skill, a criterion variable. Regression analysis revealed that individual engagement and collaborative engagement explained a significant amount of var-iance in management skill. Thus, the engagement scales demonstrated predictive validity. The usage of engagement scales for educational practices is discussed and future research directions are highlighted.

Keywords

Student engagement, sense of belonging, individual engagement, collaborative engagement, management skill, India

Introduction

Student engagement is a strong proxy of learning of students (Carini et al., 2006). Studies done in the past linked the student engagement with ‘measurable outcomes’ both inside and outside the classroom and with ‘high-quality learning outcomes’ (Krause and Coates, 2008; Kuh, 2007). Student engagement—involvement and participation of students in academic and campus activities—is a function of institutional practices and student characteristics and behaviour. Student engagement research is influenced by research on employee engagement. Employee engagement attempts to examine the commitment of employees to their organization (Mohapatra and Sharma, 2010). An educational institution has to create the opportunities for academic and developmental experience of students. Likewise, students have to show commitment to these opportunities. When students enter higher education, many of may feel out

Anup K. Singh, Ph.D., is Director General in Nirma University, Sarkhej-Gandhinagar Highway, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. E-mail: [email protected] Srivastava, Ph.D., Jaipuria Institute of Management, A32A, Sector 62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India. E-mail: [email protected]

Global Business Review15(3) 505–515

© 2014 IMI SAGE Publications

Los Angeles, London,New Delhi, Singapore,

Washington DCDOI: 10.1177/0972150914535137

http://gbr.sagepub.com

at University of Exeter on September 2, 2014gbr.sagepub.comDownloaded from


Global Business Review, 15, 3 (2014): 505–515

506 Anup K. Singh and Shalini Srivastava

of the place and remain alienated during the course of their study. Thus, educational administrators have the responsibility to ensure that students are not alienated. Rather they are actively engaged so that they do not drop out and succeed in their programmes. At the same time, students cannot remain passive recipients of educational service, provided by an institution. Like other service industries, they just cannot afford to be satisfied with the service (Vaduva et al., 2011). In fact, they have to vigorously contribute and participate in the educational service because learning takes place in the mind of a student. Consequently, the more they engage in educational experiences, the more learned and developed they become. This is where the concept of student engagement becomes crucial as it represents the time and efforts students allot to activities that are hinged to desired learning outcomes of a programme and what an educational institution does to stimulate a student to engage in these activities (Kuh, 2008).

An engaged student connects with the institution, faculty and various learning and development focussed experiences. He is prepared, motivated, passionate and curious about academic and institutional activities. He partakes by reading and discussion, working on projects and preparing for tests and examinations. Furthermore, he collaborates with other students to learn from their views and experiences and also adds to their learning and development. He feels that he belongs to the institution and takes pride in being an active member of the institution. Conversely, a disengaged student develops negative affect for the institution, including faculty, staff and students. He can sometimes become disruptive and destructive and work against faculty and the institution. This is precisely why educational administrators must understand student engagement, its different facets, drivers and outcomes and promote and strengthen it to the fullest. Kuh (2009) avers that there is a gap between expectations and behaviour of students, resulting in inadequate academic achievement. This phenomenon differs from one student group to another. Educational administrators, therefore, must have data about the different groups and develop appropriate strategies to engage them.

The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE, 2007) and the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE, 2006) are well known surveys that focus on the various aspects of student engagement. These surveys generally concentrate on undergraduate programme. In addition, they are basically North American surveys, more suitable for Western students and educational administrators. Unfortunately, student engagement has been scarcely studied and practised in India in a systematic way. There is, thus, an impending need to understand student engagement in the Indian context. Moreover, a suitable tool to measure student engagement is equally essential. In the backdrop of the above discussion, the present study aims at developing and validating a student engagement scale (SES). Student engagement is conceptualized in terms of sense of belonging, individual engagement and collaborative engagement in this study. Sense of belonging refers to the positive affect of a student towards his institution. Individual engagement relates to the commitment, time and effort of a student for learning tasks at an individual level. Finally, collaborative engagement is about the process of working collectively for curricular, co-curricular and extracurricular tasks.

Theoretical Background: Understanding Engagement

If we go back to the history of engagement, the concept was used as a remedial tool for school dropouts (Finn, 1989; Reschly and Christenson, 2006). Numerous studies have related student engagement to




Development and Validation of Student Engagement Scale in the Indian Context 507

three dimensions viz., behavioural engagement, emotional engagement and cognitive engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004; Jimerson et al., 2003). Emotional engagement relates to a feeling of belonging, whereas behavioural engagement refers to active involvement in meaningful academic activities. Finally, cognitive engagement is defined as psychological investment in learning, a desire to go beyond the requirements and a preference for challenge.

Student engagement is a complex psychosocial phenomenon of student learning and development. There are several empirical studies done in the past to strengthen this construct (Coates, 2006; Kuh, 2008; Tinto, 1993). Students are engaged when they ‘devote substantial time and effort to academic tasks, when they care about the quality of their work, and when they commit themselves because the work seems to have significance beyond its personal instrumental value’ (Newmann, 1986, p. 247). Research indicates that disengaged students often become dropouts (Miller, 2003). They may exhibit undisciplined behaviour and may have lower employability.

As discussed earlier, most student surveys concentrate on undergraduate students. Only a few studies have measured student engagement, especially in business education. Molini and Huonker (2010) studied student in a business school and found four factors of a SES. These factors were: Relevance, effort, participation and performance. Sharma et al. (2012) examined student engagement in Indian B-schools and found that students are most engaged in active participation and they are moderately engaged in relation to dedication and vigour. Finally, they are least engaged in relation to commitment to their institution. Sharma and Bhaumik (2013) identified five dimensions of student engagement and explored their different predictors. MBA students are distinctly different from them in several ways. First, they are much more self-driven. As they are in a professional course, they work hard on their employability and development. Second, they look for relevance in learning activities. They are not interested in memorising information. Rather they intend to use what they learn in a classroom. Third, they collaborate more on learning tasks. They do more discussions using case study and project work. Third, the pace of learning in a typical MBA programme is quite fast and demanding. Therefore, students have to engage themselves extensively and vigorously. Finally, most MBA schools are willing to adopt modern teaching–learning practices to add value to their students, unlike traditional universities in India that are mainly engaged in undergraduate studies. Therefore, it was thought fit to study student engagement in a professional course where it is emphasized and practiced in a real sense.

Student Engagement Surveys

Student engagement is useful for both researchers and practitioners. Practitioners would like to measure it from time to time and use it to improve educational practices. They use the survey method to collect data about student engagement and do benchmarking of student engagement vis-a-vis past standards and against other institutions.

One of the significant works on student engagement was done by the National Survey on Student Engagement (NSSE) which derived five benchmarks to assess the effectiveness of an engaged campus viz., academic challenge, students’ interactions with faculty, active and collaborative learning, enriching educational experiences and supportive campus environment (Kuh, 2001). To complement NSSE, another instrument, the FSSE (2010) was designed to measure faculty expectations for student





engagement in educational practices that are empirically linked to student learning and development. The dimensions included in this survey comprised of faculty–student interaction, effective teaching and learning strategies, encouraging student to collaborate and opportunities provided to students to engage in diverse perspectives.

Similar to this line of thinking, the Classroom Survey of Student Engagement (CLASSE; Quimet and Smallwood, 2005), an adaptation of NSSE survey, is used for individual classroom setting. It focuses on the engagement practices which faculty perceive as salient in a classroom. The Community College Survey of Student engagement (CCSSE, 2010), administered to community college students asking questions related to assessing institutional practices, students’ behaviour that are related to student learning and student retention.

Another survey of student engagement, the Student Engagement Questionnaire (SEQ), a part of the Australian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE; Coates, 2010) comprises of the dimensions like academic challenge, active learning, student and staff interactions, enriching educational experi-ences, supporting learning environment, work integrated learning and career readiness. In this scale, most of the items from the NSSE instrument were retained and some of the items relevant to Australian context were included. Another Instrument, South African Survey of Student Engagement Scale (SASSE, 2010) consists of 42 questions on vital dimensions like active and collaborative learning, level of academic challenge, enriching educational experiences, supportive campus environment and student–staff interaction.

The Present Student Engagement Scale (SES)

The decades of voluminous works, documenting the importance of student engagement and the pressure on institutions to be focussed on academic quality through the measurement of student learning and development and their continuous improvement, encouraged us to develop a SES in the Indian context. Our conceptualization of student engagement is different from Western conceptualization. We define student engagement as active individual and collective participation and passionate involvement of students in curricular, co-curricular and extracurricular activities and interactions, resulting in learning and development outcomes (Singh and Srivastava, 2013). The present study is based on a priori conceptual scheme. The main purpose is to examine some psychometric properties of the scale like reliability—internal consistency and test-retest and validity—face validity and predictive validity. We have proposed three dimensions of student engagement viz., Sense of belonging, Individual engagement and Collaborative engagement. Sense of belonging refers to a student’s sense of one’s own identity, self-respect and a positive effect in association with the Institution. It emerges out of involvement; the more students are involved academically and socially, the more likely they are to persist. Individual engagement relates to the commitment, time and effort of a student for learning tasks at an individual level. Finally, collaborative engagement is about the process of working collectively for curricular, co-curricular and extracurricular tasks. The synergy generated in the cooperative settings leads to more motivation and academic achievement compared to individualistic, competitive environments. The feeling of connection produces positive energy. Students who are actively involved in learning, both individually and collaboratively, are more likely to grow academically and, in turn, more likely to stay with an institution.





Method

Sample

The respondents consisted of 166 postgraduate students of a management institute located in the National Capital Region (NCR). The data were collected through administering a questionnaire on the respondents in their classrooms. Data collection took place in the year 2011. Mean age of the respondents was 21 years. The sample consisted of 94 students of the first year and 72 students of the second year of different Postgraduate Diploma in Management programmes.

Results

Development of Student Engagement Scale (SES)

A scale was designed through several brainstorming sessions with the faculty members and an in depth review of literature on student engagement. The first draft of the scale included 48 items. The items along with the definitions of student engagement were presented to four faculty members to get their opinions whether the items belonged to engagement or not. The faculty members were also requested to comment on the readability of the items. Based on their suggestions, seven items were deleted; thus, the final items were reduced to 41. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert type scale varying from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).

Reliability

Table 1 depicts the means, standard deviations and cronbach alphas of different dimensions of engagement scale and management skill, the criterion variable in the study. The sub-scales demonstrated adequate levels of internal consistency.

In order to examine test-retest reliability, the instrument was administered on a group of respondents (N = 35) in a separate study. The first test (T1) was administered during the month of November 2012 and the same test (T2) was readministered during the month of March 2013. The test-retest reliability scores of Sense of belonging, Individual engagement and Collaborative engagement were 0.81, 0.83 and 0.78, respectively. The findings, thus, showed high test-retest reliability for different sub-scales of engagement.

Table 2 shows that all the items of Sense of belonging were positively and significantly related to its total score.

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations and Cronbach Alphas of Different Scales (N = 166)

Sl. No. Scale Mean SD No. of Items Cronbach a

1 Sense of belonging 25.59 4.72 7 0.842 Individual engagement 43.08 6.55 13 0.843 Collaborative engagement 40.97 6.85 12 0.814 Management skill 32.55 5.18 9 0.84

Source: Authors’ findings.





It can be observed from Table 3 that there is a significant and positive relationship between all the items of Individual engagement and its total score.

Table 4 depicts a positive and significant relationship of the items of Collaborative engagement with its total score.

Table 5 depicts a significant and positive correlation among the different dimensions of student engagement and management skill.

Validity

The purpose of face validity is to determine the extent to which a test on its face value measures the construct that it purports to measure. To ascertain face validity, the items were given to four faculty

Table 2. Correlations of Various Items of Sense of Belonging with its Total Score (N = 166)

Sl. No. Items Mean SD Correlation

1 I have high regard for the institute. 3.69 0.92 0.73**2 I am an integral part of the institute. 3.60 0.90 0.71**3 I recommend my institute to others. 3.58 1.05 0.78**4 I shall be an active alumnus. 3.78 0.94 0.62**5 I am valued at the institute. 3.58 0.82 0.63**6 I take pride in being a part of the institute. 3.77 0.95 0.81**7 I shall advocate the institute for others. 3.67 0.99 0.69**

Source: Authors’ findings.Note: **P < 0.01.

Table 3. Correlations of Various Items of Individual Engagement with Its Total Score (N =166)


1 I participate in the class. 3.83 0.77 0.62** 2 I participate in co-curricular activities. 3.64 1.10 0.47** 3 I am engaged in the learning process. 3.70 0.82 0.64** 4 I ask questions in the classroom. 3.45 0.89 0.56** 5 I work hard in a course. 3.97 0.76 0.60** 6 I strive to exceed the expectations of my faculty. 3.86 0.89 0.57** 7 I contribute to classroom discussion. 3.53 0.83 0.60** 8 I relate to the models and concepts through

class projects and internship.3.60 0.87 0.50**

9 I am wowed with my learning experiences. 3.41 0.93 0.66**10 I experience the aha! feeling at the institute. 2.92 1.08 0.65**11 I do not think of a time when I study. 3.43 0.96 0.49**12 I am happy studying at the Institute. 3.56 0.95 0.70**13 I have gained management insights which

I can apply throughout my life.3.68 0.93 0.62**






Table 4. Correlations of Various Items of Collaborative Engagement with its Total Score (N = 166)


1 I discuss the application of learning with my peers. 3.41 0.91 0.71** 2 I discuss various management issues with faculty

outside the classroom.3.13 1.01 0.58**

3 I discuss topics from readings with others outside the classroom.

3.28 1.02 0.64**

4 I work with other students on class projects. 3.75 0.85 0.56** 5 I help my classmates on academic matters. 3.74 1.09 0.63** 6 I seek help from my classmates. 3.58 0.88 0.60** 7 I participate in group activities of co-curricular nature. 3.69 1.04 0.41** 8 I exchange notes and presentations with my classmates. 3.67 0.93 0.56** 9 I use social media to discuss academic matters with my

classmates.3.21 1.04 0.62**

10 I talk over phone on academic matters with my classmates.

3.57 0.98 0.60**

11 I seek the help of my seniors to clarify my doubts on academic matters.

2.99 1.09 0.53**

12 I seek the help of my seniors for career guidance. 2.94 1.07 0.48**


Table 5. Correlation between Different Variables (N=166)

Sl. No. Variables 1 2 3

1 Sense of belonging2 Individual engagement 0.78**3 Collaborative engagement 0.59** 0.69**4 Management skill 0.51** 0.70** 0.65**


members to check whether the items represented the concept of engagement. Based on their suggestions, seven items were deleted and, thus, the final items were reduced from 48 to 41.

Predictive Validity

One of the psychometric properties of a scale is the predictive validity. It is the extent to which a scale predicts scores on a criterion measure. The criterion variable for the present study is management skill. In order to ascertain predictive validity, a correlation analysis was conducted between the dimensions of student engagement and management skill. Table 5 shows that there is a positive and significant relationship between different dimensions of student engagement and management skill. Further,





predictive validity was also examined by using regression analysis to find out whether the dimensions of the scale were important predictors of management skill.

Regression Analysis

Stepwise regression was performed to find out the important predictors of management skill. Sense of belonging, individual engagement and collaborative engagement were entered into the regression equa-tion. However, only individual engagement and collaborative engagement were found to be the signifi-cant predictors of management skill (see Table 6). The model with Individual engagement explained 48 per cent variation in management skill. At step 2, collaborative engagement entered the model with revised adjusted R2 = 0.53, increasing the total explained variance from 0.48 to 0.53, an increase of 0.05. It indicates better estimated regression equation and predictive model.

Using the numbers reported in Table 6, the contribution of individual engagement and collaborative engagement in the explaining variance in management skill are computed as 33 and 20 per cent, respectively (see Table 7).

Discussion and Conclusion

Although the concept of student engagement has a western origin, it is useful for educational institutions the world over. Students are the backbone of any educational institution. So, the focus of all educational institutions is to keep the student engaged with a view to enhance their learning and development. However, culture and educational environments differ in separate countries. Consequently, the behaviour of the instructor and the student varies from one context to another. As a result, student engagement

Table 6. Model Summary for Stepwise Regression Method (N = 166)

Model Adjusted R2 F-value Standardized Coefficient t-value

1 Individual engagement 0.48 147.89** 0.70 12.16**2 Individual engagement Collaborative engagement

0.53 16.79** 0.470.31

6.12** 4.10**


Table 7. Individual Contribution of Individual Engagement and Collaborative Engagement in Explaining Management Skill

Sl. No. PredictorStandardized Beta

CoefficientPartial

CorrelationIndividual

Contribution

1 Individual engagement 0.47 0.43 0.332 Collaborative engagement 0.31 0.31 0.20

Total 0.53

Source: Authors’ findings.





instruments developed in the Western context may not apply to varied cultural contexts. Thus, the present article proposes a scale to measure student engagement that is applicable in the Indian context.

Student engagement is a multidimensional concept. It has been examined and used in both school and postsecondary education settings. Further, it is also explored in college and classroom contexts. However, the purpose of the concept and measurement remains the same, that is, learning enhancement, personal development and reduced alienation of students. A variety of methods, such as experience sampling, teaching rating, interview, observation and survey have been used to measure student engagement. Out of them, self-reported surveys have emerged as the most popular and useful method (Fredricks and McColskey, 2012). Most conceptualizations and measurements of student engagement have included cognitive, affective and behavioural dimensions and subscales. The subscale Sense of belonging measures affective engagement. It is the positive emotion of a student towards his institution. Fredricks et al. (2004) referred to it as a characteristic of emotionally engaged students. Voelkl (1997) pointed out that it is identification with the educational institution. Though sense of belonging may not directly contribute to learning and development, it is a necessary condition for learning and development. The student learns best in a congenial environment. It is, therefore, of immense importance to ensure that students have a sense of belonging.

Engagement with learning activities occurs both at individual and collaborative levels. However, these two levels are not orthogonal. Rather they complement and supplement each other. Individual engagement relates to personal commitment, time, effort, academic performance and motivation to acquire requisite knowledge, perspectives and skill. A student may acquire knowledge as interim learning at the individual level, but they have to clarity, check and cement them at a collaborative level. Finally, the student learns them at an individual level.

When students share their learning experiences, they participate in the collaborative engagement process. Learning is a social process. It is constructed at individual and social levels. In collaborative engagement, diverse viewpoints add value to a learner’s perspective and learning experiences. After having developed some understanding and after some analysis of subject matter, a student needs to interact with his peers to clarify different aspects and to explore the new dimensions of subject matter. The belief that ‘gifted students prefer to work alone’ is contradicted by previous research (Joyce, 1991; Slavin, 1991). The learning process is superior when the students come together to clarify, argue, debate and understand the various aspects of a subject matter. When a student’s viewpoints are challenged by group members, he analyses and syntheses his views and develops his own framework (Krishnamurthy, 2004). Vygotsky (1978) emphasises the collaborative, participatory and co-constructive characteristics of learning. He states that more mature and competent peers can help a learner to move from the actual level of academic performance to potential level of performance. So, when students learn in a group they not only hone their academic skill, they also learn a number of vital skills, such as teamwork, leadership, conflict resolution and collaboration. Our study is corroborated by a study by Zhao and Kuh (2004) that reported that academic performance of the students is strengthened when they work in a group.

The present work is a preliminary study in the development of SES. Although the present study is not a full-fledged one as it requires a larger sample, however, it is an initial effort to examine the psycho-metric properties of an instrument that is designed to measure the three dimensions of student engage-ment. It provided the evidence of reliability and validity of the instrument. The reliability—both internal consistency and test-retest—of the individual subscales was satisfactory. Test-retest reliability for the subscales was also high. As regards validity, both face validity and predictive validity were established.





A significant relationship was observed between predictor variables and the criterion variable. The criterion variable for the present study is management skill, which facilitates development of critical thinking, integrative thinking and problem solving. When we compare our study with studies of the development of SESs in the past (Fredricks and McColskey, 2012), we find that our scale has high reliability as well as validity. Further, our findings show that only individual engagement and collabora-tive engagement are significant drivers of management skill.

The subscales developed and validated in this study are of use to educational administrators. They can use them to measure student engagement and analyse the findings in relation to base data and student engagement in other institutions. After obtaining student engagement, a host of interventions related to student learning and development, activities and facilities should be initiated. Quantitative information generated through a survey can be further rechecked and substantiated by qualitative information gathered through interview and focus group. This scale can also be applied as an indirect measure of student learning, especially for accreditation purpose. Future research can examine our scale in undergraduate context and also in other professional disciplines, such as engineering and medicine. By using a large sample, the structure of the instrument can also be analysed. Further, the validity of the subscales can be examined via-a-vis several other outcomes of learning and development.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees of the journal for their extremely useful suggestions to improve the quality of the article. Usual disclaimers apply.

References

Carini, R.M., Kuh, G.D., & Klein, S.P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 7(1), 1–32.

Coates, H. (2006). Student engagement in campus-based and online education. Retrieved from cqu.eblib.com: http://www.cqu.eblib.com.exproxy.cqu.edu.au/EBL Web/patron/ (accessed on 9 January 2013).

Coates, H. (2010). Development of the Australian survey of student engagement (AUSSE). Higher Education, 60(1), 1–17.

Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) (2010). CCSSE 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ccsse.org (accessed on 12 May).

Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) (2006). FSSE 2006. Retrieved from http://www.fsse.iub.edu/html/fsse_survey_options.cfm (accessed on 2 February 2009).

Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) (2010). FSSE 2010. Retrieved from fsse.iub/_/?cid=13 (accessed on 12 May 2013).

Finn, J.D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142.Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of

the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.Fredricks, J.A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of

various methods and student self-report instruments. In S.A. Christenson, A.L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds), Handbook of research on student handbook (pp. 763–782). New York: Springer.

Jimerson, S.R., Campos, E., & Greif, J.L. (2003). Toward an understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. California School Psychologist, 8, 7–27.

Joyce, B. (1991). Common misconceptions about cooperative learning and gifted students. Educational Leadership, 48(6), 72–74.





Krause, K., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year University. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 227–304.

Krishnamurthy, R.C. (2004). Network based teaching and learning. Delhi: Authors Press.Kuh, G.D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the national survey of student engage-

ment. Change, 33(3), 10–17, 66.Kuh, G.D. (2007). How to help students achieve. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(41), B12–13.Kuh, G.D. (2008). High-impact practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington,

D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.Kuh, G.D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College

Student Development, 50(6), 683–706.Miller, R. (2003). Student satisfaction and institutional success. 43rd annual AIR Forum. Tampa, FL, May 2003.Mohapatra, M., & Sharma, B.R. (2010). Study of employee engagement and its predictors in an Indian public sector

undertaking. Global Business Review, 11(2), 281–301.Molini, J.M., & Huonker, J.W. (2010). Diagnosing student engagement in the business school classroom. Journal of

the Academy of Business Education, (Fall), 1–13.National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) (2007). Experiences that matter: Enhancing student learning and

success. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Center for Postsecondary Research.Newmann, F.M. (1986). Priorities for the future: Toward a common agenda. Social Education, 50(4), 240–250.Quimet, J.A., & Smallwood, R.A. (2005). CLASSE—the class-level survey of student engagement. Assessment

Update, 17(6), 13–15.Reschly, A., & Christenson, S.L. (2006). Research leading to a predictive model of dropout and completion among

students with mild disabilities and the role of student engagement. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 276–292.Sharma, B.R., Khandelwal, S., & Ninghoujam, S. (2012). The level of student engagement and search for its predic-

tors: An exploratory study of MBA students. Metamorphosis: A Journal of Management Research, 11(2), 66–81.Sharma, B.R., & Bhaumik, P.K. (2013). Student engagement and its predictors: An exploratory study in an Indian

business school. Global Business Review, 14(1), 25–42.Singh, A.K., & Srivastava, S. (2013). Certain antecedents and consequence of student engagement in an Indian

management education setting. Metamorphosis: A Journal of Management Research, 12(1), 47–64.Slavin, R.E. (1991). Are cooperative learning and ‘untracking’ harmful to the gifted? Educational Leadership,

48(6), 68–70.South African Survey of Student Engagement (SASSE). (2010). SASSE 2010. Retrieved from http://sasse.ufs.ac.za

(accessed on 12 May 2013).Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (ed. 2nd). Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.Vaduva, S.A., Fotea, I.S., Corcea, M., & Lazer, M. (2011). Beyond satisfaction: Engaging students and faculty in a

Romanian business school. Marketing Management Journal, 21(1), 207–213.Voelkl, K.E. (1997). Identification with school. American Journal of School, 105, 204–319.Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.Zhao, C., & Kuh, G.D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher

Education, 45(2), 115–138.



development and validation of student engagement scale in the indian context

Documents