introduction - paultbalwant.files.wordpress.com€¦ · web viewto do so, i first introduce the...

This is a preprint of an article published in the Journal of Further and Higher Education,

Volume 0, Issue 0, pages 1-13, 2017, and is located at the following URL:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1281887

1

of 33

The meaning of student engagement and disengagement in the classroom

context: Lessons from organisational behaviour

Paul T. Balwant

Management School, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom

Postal address: Department of Management Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, The University

of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad.

Telephone number: (868) 792 1600

Email address: [email protected]

of 33

The meaning of student engagement and disengagement in the classroom

context: Lessons from organisational behaviour

Despite the popularity of student engagement and, by association, student disengagement,

the academic literature is unclear about the meaning of these terms. This review extends

existing conceptual studies of student engagement by offering clear definitions and

conceptualisations of both student engagement and disengagement in the classroom

context. To develop these conceptualisations, the present review draws upon organisational

behaviour theory on work engagement and disengagement because the literature in this

discipline is notably more refined than in educational research. Using an organisational

behaviour backdrop, student engagement and disengagement are defined by the degree of

students’ activation and pleasure. In order to operationalise student engagement, measures

that are aligned with the proposed conceptualisation are recommended. Recommendations

are also suggested for the development of a measure of student disengagement. The

proposed measurement of student engagement and disengagement should provide a unified

direction for future empirical research on these topics.

Keywords: student engagement, student disengagement, activation, pleasure, organisational

behaviour

Introduction

Student engagement is a buzzword that has received much attention over the past few decades.

For instance, an internet search for ‘student engagement in higher education' retrieves 13.4

million hits. However, despite the popularity of student engagement, there is often little regard

for the meaning of engagement and its antithesis, disengagement. Some academic researchers

have attempted to clarify engagement, including its antecedents and consequences (e.g., E. R.

Kahu 2013; J. A. Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004). However, engagement researchers

have yet to explain the theoretical meaning of student engagement and disengagement, including

the distinctiveness of these concepts. The aim of this paper is to offer clear conceptualisations of

student engagement and disengagement which highlight the conceptual boundaries of these

of 33

terms. To do so, I first introduce the organisational behaviour approach to engagement and

disengagement because, in this discipline, both terms are more well-defined than in the education

literature. Then, I use the lessons from organisational behaviour research to develop clearer

conceptualisations of student engagement and disengagement than those which currently exist in

educational research.

Organisational behaviour approach: Work engagement and disengagement

There is a wealth of research on both work engagement and disengagement (also referred to as

job burnout) in organisational behaviour literature. In this literature, job burnout research

emerged in the 1970s whereas work engagement research started in 1990, gaining momentum in

the early 2000s. Even with this wealth of research in organisational behaviour, there is still a

debate on the work engagement concept and the work disengagement concept remains unclear.

Disengagement refers to ‘the simultaneous withdrawal and defence of a person’s

preferred self in behaviours that promote a lack of connections, physical, cognitive, and

emotional absence, and passive, incomplete role performances’ (Kahn 1990, 701; italics added).

Withdrawal of oneself can be manifested in the form of automatic or robotic behaviour, burnout,

apathy or detachment, or reduction in effort (Kahn 1990). Defending oneself means that an

individual conceals their true thoughts and feelings via self-defence, e.g., impersonal,

emotionally inexpressive, bureaucratic, or closed behaviours (Kahn 1990). For instance, Kahn

(1990) describes an individual who didn’t allow others to get close, even though the individual

preferred to share interpersonal connections. The ambiguity regarding work disengagement

arises because organisational behaviour researchers typically use the terms work disengagement

and job burnout interchangeably.

of 33

Job burnout refers to ‘the exhaustion of employees’ capacity to maintain an intense

involvement that has a meaningful impact at work’ (Schaufeli, Leiter, and Maslach 2009, 205).

Maslach and Jackson (1981) describe job burnout as being composed of exhaustion, cynicism,

and inefficacy. Emotional exhaustion means that an individual’s emotional resources are used up

and they become worn out (Cole et al. 2012; Maslach and Jackson 1981). Cynicism or

depersonalisation means that the individual becomes dehumanised or distant in their interactions

with others (Cole et al. 2012; Maslach and Jackson 1981). Inefficacy or lack of personal

accomplishment means that an individual develops feelings of incompetence and failure (Cole et

al. 2012). Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001) propose that these three job burnout dimensions

result from an erosion of engagement. That is, ‘…energy turns into exhaustion, involvement

turns into cynicism, and efficacy turns into ineffectiveness’ (Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter

2001, 416).

In Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter’s (2001) view, job burnout is the antithesis of work

engagement – work engagement is characterised by energy, involvement, and efficacy.

Therefore, work engagement and job burnout are described as opposite poles with the positive

pole being work engagement and the negative pole being job burnout (Schaufeli, Leiter, and

Maslach 2009). Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001) further distinguish the difference between

job burnout and work engagement according to levels of pleasure and activation. In this

conceptualisation, ‘burnout is characterised by low level of activation and pleasure, whereas

engagement is characterised by high levels of activation and pleasure’ (Maslach, Schaufeli, and

Leiter 2001, 417).

Schaufeli, Salanova, et al. (2002) adopt a different stance to Maslach, Schaufeli, and

Leiter’s (2001) ‘opposite poles’ notion. While Schaufeli, Salanova, et al. (2002) agree that work

of 33

engagement is the positive antipode of job burnout, they reject the notion that engagement and

burnout are opposite ends of the same continuum. Instead, Schaufeli, Salanova, et al. (2002)

propose that work engagement is a standalone concept. They support their argument by

highlighting shortcomings of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) – the gold standard measure

of job burnout – as a measure of work engagement (Schaufeli and Bakker 2004). For instance, an

MBI item which reads, ‘Feeling emotionally drained from one’s work “once a week”’ does not

mean that the individual is not engaged for the other days of the week (Schaufeli and Bakker

2004, 294). Moreover, if an individual is never emotionally drained from work, this does not

mean that they are engaged. Schaufeli and Bakker (2004, 294) assert that instead of being

‘perfectly complementary and mutually exclusive states, burnout and engagement are

independent states that – because of their antithetical nature – are supposed to be negatively

related’.

Schaufeli, Salanova, et al. (2002) propose that work engagement should be defined and

measured as a distinct concept. In their view, work engagement is a persistent and pleasurable

cognitive-affective state consisting of vigour, dedication, and absorption. Vigour refers to a high

level of energy and mental resilience in application of work efforts (Schaufeli, Salanova, et al.

2002). Dedication refers to a strong level of involvement in one’s work, and is usually

characterised by significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, and pride (Schaufeli, Salanova, et al.

2002). Absorption refers to a deep level of concentration and focus on one’s work to the extent

that the individual becomes unaware of time passing by, and find it difficult to detach themselves

from the work (Schaufeli, Salanova, et al. 2002). Vigour, dedication, and absorption are

measured by the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES). To date, the UWES remains the

most popular measure of the standalone concept of work engagement.

of 33

Even though Schaufeli and colleagues along with other work engagement researchers

argue that work engagement is a standalone concept, Cole et al. (2012) explain that two of the

three dimensions for both work engagement and job burnout are bipolar opposites. That is,

vigour and dedication are direct opposites to exhaustion and cynicism respectively (see Cole et

al. 2012 for a comparison of the items for job burnout and work engagement dimensions). In a

meta-analysis, the findings by Cole et al. (2012) support their suspicions regarding the

distinctiveness of the content dimensions underlying work engagement and job burnout.

Specifically, the authors found that (1) the dimensions for work engagement and job burnout are

highly correlated, (2) the dimensions for work engagement and job burnout show a similar

pattern of association with correlates, and (3) the effect sizes for the dimensions of work

engagement are markedly reduced when controlling for job burnout. Overall, these findings

suggest a misalignment between the theory and measurement of work engagement.

Theoretically, work engagement is regarded as independent of job burnout, but work

engagement, as measured by the UWES, overlaps considerably with job burnout, as measured by

the MBI.

To address this misalignment, Cole et al. (2012) suggest that it is important to advance

work engagement research via theoretical clarity. The authors point to Kahn’s (1990) seminal

definition of work engagement, which may offer insight into the distinguishing features of work

engagement in comparison to job burnout. Kahn (1990, 694) defines work engagement as ‘the

harnessing of organisation members’ selves to their work roles’. Engaged employees

simultaneously employ and express their ‘“preferred self” in task behaviours that promote

connections to work and to others, personal presence, and active, full role performances’ (Kahn

1990, 700). By employing and expressing one’s preferred self, this produces behaviours that

of 33

invigorates the relation of self to work role. This connection between work engagement and

work role performance is not something explicitly considered by job burnout (Cole et al. 2012).

Kahn (1990) conceptualises work engagement as consisting of emotional, behavioural,

and cognitive energy in work role performance. Following this proposition, in a comprehensive

review of work engagement, Shuck and Wollard (2010) assert that Kahn’s (1990) three

dimensions of emotion, behaviour, and cognition offer clarity for moving work engagement

research forward. The immediate difference to Schaufeli and colleagues’ conceptualisation is

that instead of being just a cognitive-affective state, work engagement also manifests itself

behaviourally. The three dimensions of work engagement may share the same conceptual space

as other concepts from organisational behaviour research depending upon the extent to which the

organisational behaviour concepts are characterised by pleasure and high levels of activation. In

Macey and Schneider’s (2008) review of diverse literatures on work engagement, they offer

propositions regarding numerous organisational behaviour concepts and the criteria for these

concepts being regarded as facets of emotional, behavioural, and cognitive engagement (Macey

and Schneider 2008).

Emotional engagement

Shuck and Wollard (2010, 105) broadly define emotional engagement as ‘the feelings and beliefs

held by those who are engaged’. Macey and Schneider (2008) emphasise that feelings and beliefs

must connote passion in order to be regarded as engagement. In this view, Larsen and Diener’s

(1992, 31) conceptualisation of positive affect as ‘activated pleasant affect’, composed of both

activation and pleasantness, can be regarded as engagement. Markers of positive affect such as

enthusiastic, inspired, proud, determined, strong, and active, (Watson, Clark, and Tellegen 1988)

of 33

all connote high levels of activation, and are thus reflective of engagement (Macey and

Schneider 2008).

Schaufeli, Salanova, et al. (2002) also refer to high activation in their emotional

descriptions of vigour, dedication, and absorption. For each factor, some energetic emotional

item is included, e.g., ‘At my work, I feel bursting with energy’ (vigour), ‘I am enthusiastic

about my job’ (dedication), and ‘I feel happy when I am working intensely’ (absorption)

(Schaufeli, Salanova, et al. 2002, 88). For Schaufeli and colleagues’ three-factor model,

emotional engagement forms part of each of the three constructs. Alternatively, emotional

engagement can also be represented as a distinct construct in line with Kahn’s original

conceptualisation of engagement (see measures offered by May, Gilson, and Harter 2004; Rich,

Lepine, and Crawford 2010).

Often, emotional engagement is tied to job satisfaction (e.g., Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes

2002). However, the two concepts differ because ‘engagement connotes activation, whereas

satisfaction connotes satiation’ (Macey and Schneider 2008, 8). When satisfaction measures

satiation, it does not share the same conceptual space as engagement. But, facets of satisfaction

that assess feelings of energy, enthusiasm, and other positive affective states can be regarded as

emotional engagement (Macey and Schneider 2008).

Behavioural engagement

Behavioural engagement is commonly conceptualised as extra effort or discretionary effort (e.g.,

Towers-Perrin 2003). Macey and Schneider (2008) assert that extra effort represents a limited

view of engagement because (1) ‘extra’ indicates a point of reference which is never really

defined in the literature and (2) extra effort implies doing more of the same; however,

behaviourally engaged employees can also work smarter, e.g., being more creative in their work

of 33

role and/or better allocation of time and energy (Brown and Leigh 1996). Given the limited

scope of extra effort, Macey and Schneider (2008) conceptualise behavioural engagement as

‘innovative behaviours, demonstrations of initiative, proactively seeking opportunities to

contribute, and going beyond what is, within specific frames of reference, typically expected or

required’ (Macey and Schneider 2008, 15). Using this conceptualisation, Macey and Schneider

(2008) explain that behavioural engagement can include facets such as organisational citizenship

behaviour, role expansion, proactive behaviour, and personal initiative.

Cognitive engagement

Cognitive engagement is best represented by Schaufeli, Salanova, et al.’s (2002) absorption

concept. Absorption refers to a deep trance-like focus on one’s work (Babcock-Roberson and

Strickland 2010; Schaufeli, Salanova, et al. 2002). As mentioned earlier, Schaufeli, Salanova, et

al. (2002) include an emotional element in their conceptualisation of absorption, i.e., happiness.

To keep more in line with Kahn’s conceptual boundaries between cognition and emotion, May et

al. (2004) removed the emotional aspect from absorption in their measurement of cognitive

engagement. Building on the concept of absorption, Shuck and Wollard (2010) state that

cognitive engagement can also include employees’ intellectual commitment as well as their

thoughts and understanding of their job, company, and culture.

While I agree with Cole et al. (2012) that the theoretical clarity provided by Kahn (1990)

regarding work engagement clarifies its meaning and distinguishes work engagement from job

burnout, I question the use of job burnout and work disengagement as interchangeable terms in

the organisational behaviour literature. Following Cole et al.’s (2012) recommendation to

advance work engagement research via theoretical clarity, work disengagement also needs to be

clearly conceptualised. Kahn’s (1990) original definition of work disengagement that is stated

of 33

earlier, highlights two key conceptual features of disengagement – withdrawal of oneself in the

work role and defence of a person’s preferred self. Here, Kahn (1990) clarifies that burnout is but

one way that an individual can withdraw themselves from the work role. For instance, an

individual may also withdraw themselves by becoming apathetic or robotic. Therefore, an

individual may be disengaged without experiencing burnout. Moreover, Kahn’s (1990) definition

of disengagement refers to individuals becoming defensive of their preferred self – a behaviour

that is not captured by the job burnout concept. Taken together, in Kahn’s (1990) original

conceptualisation of disengagement, burnout is a subset of one of the two conceptual features of

disengagement. Therefore, disengagement may consist of burnout, but burnout is not necessarily

a feature of disengagement, and thus disengagement and burnout are not interchangeable

concepts.

In summary, organisational behaviour researchers are beginning to refocus on the original

conceptualisation of work engagement as proposed by Kahn (1990). In this conceptualisation,

work engagement is composed of three dimensions, including emotion, behaviour and cognition.

In recent conceptual studies, these three dimensions are emphasised as a means for clarifying the

concept of work engagement and its conceptual parameters. Unlike work engagement research,

little attention has been given to the concept of work disengagement, with organisational

behaviour researchers regarding work disengagement and job burnout as synonymous concepts.

However, the interchangeable use of work disengagement and job burnout appears to be a

theoretical misstep that exists in much of the organisational behaviour literature. To address the

theoretical ambiguity regarding work disengagement, I suggest that researchers revisit Kahn’s

(1990) seminal work on disengagement. Kahn (1990) explains that disengagement is composed

of two key conceptual features – withdrawal from the work role and defence of preferred self –

of 33

for which burnout is but a subset of withdrawal behaviours. Interestingly, educational researchers

have emphasised the three dimensions of affect, behaviour, and cognition for conceptualising

student engagement, and referred to a broad range of withdrawal behaviours when describing

student disengagement.

Educational approach: Student engagement and disengagement

In the educational literature, the term engagement is used to refer to student engagement. In

Trowler and Trowler’s (2010) review of student engagement, they explain that student

engagement can be divided into three types. First, student engagement in individual student

learning refers to students being engaged for the purpose of improving their learning outcomes.

Second, student engagement consists of structure and process, and refers to students’

involvement in governance and leadership. Third, student engagement with respect to identity

includes the extent to which benefits vary for different students. Trowler and Trowler (2010)

assert that the value of student engagement in individual student learning (henceforth referred to

as student engagement) is no longer questioned. This type of engagement is the focus of this

paper because, of the three, it is the most relevant to the classroom context.

In educational research, various authors have acknowledged that there is considerable

ambiguity with respect to the definition and scope of student engagement (J. A. Fredricks,

Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004; E. R. Kahu 2013). For instance, student engagement has often been

defined according to its measurement by popular student engagement surveys such as the

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) (e.g., Kezar and Kinzie 2006). The NSSE

describes four student engagement themes including academic challenge, learning with peers,

experiences with faculty, and campus environment (“From Benchmarks to Engagement

Indicators and High-Impact Practices” 2015). These four themes are measured by a very broad

of 33

range of questions describing students own actions (all four themes), perceptions of coursework

(academic challenge), perceptions of instructors’ actions (experiences with faculty), and

perceptions of the institutional environment (campus environment) (see Table 1 for sample

questions) (“From Benchmarks to Engagement Indicators and High-Impact Practices” 2015). As

shown in Table 1, the NSSE appears to be useful for measuring students’ overall experiences in

higher education. However, the approach of using these wide-ranging scope of items to

conceptualise student engagement is counterintuitive to the theoretical development of student

engagement because (1) operational definitions follow conceptualisations in scientific research

and not the other way around, and (2) student engagement becomes an all-encompassing

construct riddled with ambiguity and fuzziness. Moreover, there are also validity issues with the

NSSE (Pike 2006; Porter 2010).

Table 1 near here

Perhaps the most alarming issue regarding the conceptuality of student engagement, is

that numerous researchers have simply failed to explicitly define engagement. In many studies,

engagement is defined as being composed of a wide assortment of educational terms and

concepts, e.g., participation, motivation, grades, self-efficacy, etc. (e.g., Jimerson, Campos, and

Greif 2003). However, in the education literature, there is a glaring absence with respect to the

precise meaning of student engagement. As pointed out by Blumer (1940, 707), ‘concepts that

are vague and unclear are an immediate obstacle to effective scientific research and to the

attainment of rigorous knowledge’. For student engagement, researchers have yet to identify

what it is and what it is not. Without conceptual boundaries, measurement of student engagement

tends to vary widely between studies, thus furthering the gap between theory and empirical

of 33

observation. This gap is problematic because it does not allow for rigorous deduction as well as

concept testing and revision (Blumer 1940).

In light of the ambiguity surrounding student engagement, Kahu (2013) and Fredricks et

al. (2004) offer suggestions for moving the education field forward towards a clear and unified

conceptualisation of engagement. Kahu (2013) suggests that a combination of the psychological

and socio-cultural perspectives offers the best representation of student engagement. The

psychological perspective recognises that engagement is ‘an individual psychological state with

three dimensions … of affect, cognition, and behaviour’ (E. R. Kahu 2013, 764). Student

engagement research typically focuses on facets of one or two of these three dimensions (J. A.

Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004). Fredricks et al. (2004) support the psychological

perspective stating that scholars need to fuse the three dimensions of engagement together to

provide a richer conceptualisation in which these three dimensions are dynamically interrelated.

The major drawback to this psychological perspective is that it ignores the role of the situation.

This shortcoming is addressed by the socio-cultural perspective.

The socio-cultural perspective examines how student engagement may be affected by

wider economic issues, newer technologies, and changing societal values. Here, the emphasis

shifts from the individual to the structures in which they are embedded. In other words, the

situation in which students are engaged can affect the three dimensions of psychological

engagement, i.e., affect, behaviour, and cognition. Here, I briefly describe the socio-cultural

perspective to indicate that engagement is influenced by wider contextual factors. However,

detailed discussion of these factors are beyond the scope of this paper.

In addition to psychological and socio-cultural perspectives, two other perspectives of

student engagement include the behavioural and holistic perspectives. These perspectives define

of 33

engagement as a process to improve student achievement rather than an element in that process.

As such, both perspectives tend to convolute the three dimensions of affective, behavioural, and

cognitive engagement (E. R. Kahu 2013).

Even though both Kahu (2013) and Fredricks et al. (2004) propose recommendations for

improving the conceptualisation of engagement, no definition of the concept is offered in either

of their reviews. Based on their reviews and an examination of student engagement research,

student engagement may be regarded as students’ involvement in the academic aspects of their

studies. This broad definition highlights the expansive nature of the concept in education

research. Using this definition, engagement refers to any academic-oriented outcome associated

with affect, behaviour, and cognition. In addition, student engagement and disengagement are

often regarded as opposite poles on the same continuum. In this view, student disengagement is

simply a lack of affective (e.g., decline in interest), behavioural (e.g., lack of participation), and

cognitive (e.g., lack of attention) engagement (J. A. Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004).

Overall, student engagement and disengagement ‘[suffer] from being everything to everybody’

(J. A. Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004, 84). As such, there is a ‘need for clarity about what

is and is not included in student engagement [and disengagement] and for an assessment of the

“value added” by studying engagement [and disengagement]’ (J. A. Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and

Paris 2004, 84).

To move the education field forward, an examination of what constitutes student

engagement and disengagement is necessary. Dictionary definitions of disengagement describe

the concept similarly to that proposed in organisational behaviour literature, i.e., detaching or

withdrawing oneself from an activity (“Disengagement”, Merriam-Webster.com;

“Disengagement”, Oxford English Dictionary Online). Here, it is clear that disengagement is

of 33

characterised by low activation. However, for student engagement, dictionaries offer little

meaningful information, often defining engagement as the act of being engaged; with engaged

taken to mean behavioural involvement in an activity (“Engagement”, Merriam-Webster.com;

“Engagement”, Oxford English Dictionary Online). A better approach to conceptualising student

engagement may be to adopt the conceptual features of engagement from organisational

behaviour research. In the organisational behaviour discipline, the concept of engagement has

matured more than in the education discipline by focusing on what it means to be ‘engaged’.

Borrowing from organisational behaviour, the scope of student engagement can be narrowed so

that engagement is characterised by high levels of activation and pleasure.

The idea that student engagement can be characterised by activation and pleasure is not

completely new. Nystrand and Gamoran (1991) distinguish between procedural and substantive

student engagement. Procedural engagement is characterised by normal or ‘undistinguished’

activity. Here, students ‘go through the motions’ in order to develop competence in academic

activities (Nystrand and Gamoran 1991). In contrast, substantive engagement transcends

procedural engagement, and is characterised by meaningful and highly energetic activity

(Nystrand and Gamoran 1991). In Nystrand and Gamoran’s study, there is a clear similarity

between substantive student engagement and the concept of work engagement from

organisational behaviour research. Furthermore, the UWES – an organisational behaviour

measure which taps into highly activated activity – is also infrequently used to measure student

engagement (Schaufeli, Martínez, et al. 2002; Schaufeli, Salanova, et al. 2002).

Both (1) Nystrand and Gamoran’s concept of substantive student engagement and (2)

Schaufeli and colleagues’ empirical studies using adapted versions of organisational behaviour

measures of student engagement, emphasise high activation and pleasure for engagement.

of 33

Accordingly, the eclectic concept of student engagement in extant educational research needs to

shed its procedural aspects in order to have value as a distinct concept that would be aligned with

the latest developments in organisational behaviour approaches to engagement. Moving

educational research forward towards Nystrand and Gamoran’s (1991) substantive approach to

engagement, I define student engagement as highly activated and pleasurable emotional,

behavioural, and cognitive involvement in academic activities. For each of the three dimensions

of student engagement, the following subsections describe the extant state of engagement in

educational research followed by my suggestions for narrowing the scope of each dimension to

focus on activation and pleasure.

Emotional engagement

In the educational literature, emotional engagement has been defined as ‘students’ affective

reactions in the classroom’ (J. A. Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004, 63). Early research on

student affect examined stress (Alzahem et al. 2011), satisfaction (Allen et al. 2002), and

affective learning (D’Mello 2013). There has also been an emergence of research on specific

student emotions in higher education classroom settings (Pekrun, Elliot, and Maier 2009;

Stephanou, Kariotoglou, and Dinas 2011). A central tenet of research on emotions is the

subdivision of emotions into positive and negative dimensions. Some positive emotions students

experience include interest, enjoyment, happiness, hope, and pride. Some negative emotions

include boredom, sadness, frustration, anger, and anxiety (Goetz et al. 2003; Pekrun, Elliot, and

Maier 2009).

There are two major differences between the organisational behaviour and educational

conceptualisations of emotional engagement. The first difference is that the educational approach

to emotional engagement regards all affective student outcomes as engagement whereas

of 33

organisational behaviour research concentrates on activated feelings and emotions. Based on my

proposed definition of student engagement, only activated affective reactions should be

considered engagement. To identify activated affective reactions, Warr (2007) provides a

framework based on numerous empirical studies of activated feelings. In this framework, highly

activated or aroused feelings include alert, excited, energetic, enthusiastic, cheerful, and elated.

Warr (2007) also identifies highly activated feelings that are characterised by displeasure. This

leads to the second difference between the education and organisational behaviour literatures.

The second difference is that the educational approach to emotional engagement regards

both positive and negative feelings and emotions as engagement (J. A. Fredricks, Blumenfeld,

and Paris 2004), whereas the organisational behaviour approach focuses solely on pleasantness

or positive affect. Following the organisational behaviour approach, emotional engagement

should only refer to feelings and emotions that are characterised by both activation and pleasure.

Feelings and emotions that are characterised by activation and displeasure do not share the same

conceptual space as emotional engagement, e.g., alarmed, afraid, tense, anxious, and uneasy

(Warr 2007).

Behavioural engagement

Behavioural engagement is usually defined in terms of specific facets. Fredricks et al. (2004)

categorised these facets into three classifications. These classifications include (1) positive

conduct and adherence to rules, e.g., attendance; (2) participation in learning activities, e.g.,

asking questions, completing tasks, assisting colleagues; and (3) involvement in extracurricular

activities, e.g., sports, clubs, and societies.

Of the three classifications, only the first two are relevant to the classroom/module

context. Participation in learning activities is reflective of an activated state, and thus indicates

of 33

engagement. However, positive conduct and adherence to rules implies compliance rather than

an activated state in which the student is doing something ‘extra’ or smarter. As suggested by

organisational behaviour researchers, the ‘extra’ component has value in defining behavioural

engagement when a specific frame of reference is provided (Macey and Schneider 2008). Like

organisational behaviour researchers, educational researchers need to specify a frame of

reference in defining and measuring extra effort. Furthermore, for positive conduct and

adherence to rules, educational researchers sometimes regard the absence of disengaged

behaviour as engagement, e.g., non-absenteeism (J. A. Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004;

Jimerson, Campos, and Greif 2003). Based on my conceptualisation of student engagement, this

approach does not measure activated behaviours. Instead, non-absenteeism may be regarded as

unexceptional or cursory involvement in a class/module.

Cognitive engagement

Cognitive engagement is defined as ‘a student’s psychological investment in and effort directed

towards learning, understanding, or mastering the knowledge skills or crafts’ (Newmann 1992,

12). Cognitive engagement typically consists of the concept of students’ self-regulation (J. A.

Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004) including a deep involvement in their learning or

studying (E. R. Kahu 2013). Self-regulation can be defined as the ‘use of learning principles to

regulate one’s own behaviour’ (Johns and Saks 2007, 60). Students who engage in self-regulated

learning use specific learning principles in a process or cycle.

Zimmerman (2002) proposes a model of self-regulated learning, which captures most of

the models of self-regulation offered by various researchers. The author proposes three phases of

self-regulated learning. The first phase of forethought includes setting goals and strategically

planning ways to achieve them. This phase is characterised by motivational beliefs such as self-

of 33

efficacy and intrinsic value. The second phase of performance involves students’ strategic

actions towards the goal. Performance includes students’ use of cognitive strategies such as

attention and imagery, as well as self-control strategies such as self-instruction, self-recording,

and self-experimentation. The final phase of self-reflection involves the critical evaluation of

outcomes and use of self-judgment (Cassidy 2011). The three phases provide a framework for

analysing the process of self-regulated learning. In addition to Zimmerman’s model, Boekaerts

(1999) developed another well-known and complementary model of self-regulation.

Boekaerts’ three layer conceptual model of self-regulated learning offers a unique

perspective to self-regulation (Boekaerts 1999). The innermost layer describes students’ choice

of cognitive learning strategy. Learning strategies are categorised by Marton and Saljo (1997) as

either a ‘deep’ or ‘surface’ approach to learning. Students who use a deep approach, try to

genuinely understand the underlying meaning of the content through the use of active problem

solving and deep thinking skills (Heikkilä and Lonka 2006). Conversely, the surface approach

involves rote learning for the purpose of memorisation, recall, and other routine processing

activities (Ferla, Valcke, and Schuyten 2009; Heikkilä and Lonka 2006). In addition to deep and

surface approaches to learning, Ramsden (1979) refers to a third approach called ‘strategic’.

Students who use a strategic approach to learning, seek cues from their environment in order to

focus their efforts towards maximising assessment outcomes, e.g., paying careful attention to

guidelines given by a tutor for an assignment or remaining alert for any implicit messages sent

by an instructor (Ramsden 1979). Besides learning approaches, researchers also examine

learning strategies such as note taking (Peper and Mayer 1978; Peper and Mayer 1986) and time

management (Torenbeek, Jansen, and Suhre 2012). The choice of learning strategy may be

regarded as part of Zimmerman’s forethought phase, but certain concepts such as time

of 33

management can be relevant to all of Zimmerman’s phases. The second layer of Boekaerts’

model describes the use of metacognitive knowledge and skills for direct learning. Like

Zimmerman’s self-reflection phase, this second layer is described from a regulatory standpoint.

The third layer involves the individual’s regulation of themselves. This layer appears to be

similar to Zimmerman’s self-reflection phase. Overall, Zimmerman’s model provides a

framework for the process of self-regulation and Boekaerts’ model offers a three-layered

conceptual framework.

Self-regulation is characterised by learning activities that vary in intensity of activation.

For instance, setting goals and strategically planning ways to achieve them, self-instruction, self-

recording, self-experimentation, and a deep approach to learning are all characterised by high

activation. Moreover, some of these activated self-regulation sub-concepts or learning activities

are likely to share the same conceptual space with absorption, i.e., students become absorbed in

their learning and develop a trance-like focus in class or in their studies. Therefore, these

activated self-regulation sub-concepts are likely to be indicative of engagement. On the other

hand, other self-regulation sub-concepts such as surface approaches to learning, note-taking, and

time management are all characterised by moderate to low levels of activation. Hence, these

learning activities may be regarded as ‘going through the motions’ rather than engagement.

Overall, for student engagement and its three dimensions, I offer suggestions for moving

educational research forward so that it is better aligned with the recent conceptualisations of

work engagement that is proposed in organisational behaviour research. For the related student

disengagement concept, educational researchers have considered a broader range of

disengagement withdrawal behaviours than organisational behaviour researchers. Specifically,

educational researchers consider various withdrawal behaviours as disengagement, and these

of 33

behaviours are aligned with Kahn’s (1990) original conceptualisation of personal disengagement,

including apathy and reduced effort (Trout 1997), burnout (Schaufeli, Martínez, et al. 2002), and

alienation (Mann 2001; Case 2007). Evidently, educational researchers take a step beyond

organisational behaviour researchers because the latter group of researchers focus primarily on

one withdrawal behaviour, i.e., burnout, when conceptualising disengagement.

Nonetheless, the conceptualisation of student disengagement in the education literature is

still limited in three ways. First, like student engagement, educational researchers have not

explicitly defined the meaning of student disengagement. As mentioned before, conceptual

ambiguity is a serious issue that prevents the advancement of scientific knowledge in any field.

Accordingly, student disengagement is at risk of becoming an eclectic concept that can be

interpreted as any low activation state, e.g., bored, tired, mindlessly taking notes, etc. Second,

withdrawal behaviours such as student burnout, apathy, and alienation are often discussed as

opposites to engagement, but these three concepts are discussed in isolation rather than under the

common umbrella of disengagement. Third, student disengagement does not explicitly consider

one of the two conceptual features of disengagement as proposed by Kahn (1990). Specifically,

the concept of student disengagement rarely acknowledges students’ hiding of their true thoughts

and feelings during a class or module, e.g., exhibiting closed or inexpressive behaviours which

defends their preferred self (these defensive behaviours are implied in Mann’s (2001)

conceptualisation of student alienation).

Taking into account these three conceptual shortcomings of student disengagement in the

educational literature, and following Kahn’s (1990) seminal paper on personal disengagement, I

define student disengagement as students simultaneous withdrawal of themselves and defence of

their preferred self in displaying low activation behaviours that are characterised by physical,

of 33

cognitive, and emotional absence and passivity. The proposed conceptualisation of student

disengagement disentangles its meaning from any low activation state, and clearly defines its

conceptual features. Furthermore, by following Kahn’s (1990) original conceptualisation of

personal disengagement, the proposed conceptuality for student disengagement is regarded as

independent to engagement with the former regarded as a ‘fall’ and the latter a ‘leap’ (Kahn

1990).

To summarise, the meanings of student engagement and disengagement are unclear. For

student engagement, the psychological approach offers a framework consisting of affective,

behavioural, and cognitive engagement. Even though this framework offers clarity on the

multidimensional nature of student engagement, it does not specify the meaning of engagement

or its conceptual boundaries. For disengagement, educational researchers often refer to a wide

range of withdrawal behaviours, but generally fail to describe the meaning of student

disengagement. To address these issues, I use the organisational behaviour strand of research on

work engagement and disengagement to give prominence to the notions of activation and

pleasure. The degree of activation and pleasure is key for distinguishing between what

engagement and disengagement are and what engagement and disengagement are not. With a

clear conceptuality of student engagement and disengagement, including their dimensions, it

becomes easier to ascertain the unique differences in antecedents and consequences of

engagement and burnout (E. R. Kahu 2013).

Conclusion and recommendations

Historically, both organisational behaviour and educational approaches to engagement and

disengagement lacked clarification and consistency across studies. This lack of consistency led

to difficulties when attempting to compare results between studies. To overcome this problem,

of 33

both organisational behaviour and educational researchers are beginning to offer clearer

conceptualisations of (1) work engagement (e.g., Macey and Schneider 2008; Shuck and Wollard

2010) and (2) student engagement (e.g., J. A. Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004; E. R. Kahu

2013) than existing conceptualisations in the respective literatures. The organisational behaviour

approach to engagement is entering a more mature phase than the educational approach in that

the conceptual boundaries of work engagement are well-established. On the contrary, in

comparison to organisational behaviour researchers, educational researchers seem to better

capture the meaning of disengagement that is proposed in organisational behaviour research. For

organisational behaviour research, Kahn’s influential paper on personal engagement and

disengagement clarifies the conceptual features and boundaries of work engagement and

disengagement, and these conceptualisations can be adopted in educational research in order to

improve our understanding of student engagement and disengagement.

In this paper, student engagement is specified as being characterised by both high

activation and pleasure, and this conceptualisation of engagement is identical to that in the

organisational behaviour literature. This view needs to be adopted by educational researchers in

order to disentangle student engagement from meaning everything related to affect, behaviour,

and cognition. My conceptualisation clarifies the meaning of student engagement, removing the

ambiguity often accompanying the concept. In addition to engagement, the organisational

behaviour literature recognises the related concept of disengagement – a low activation state

(Kahn 1990). Following the recommendations proposed in this paper, extant educational

research needs to acknowledge that student disengagement includes not only withdrawal

behaviours from the work role, but also the defence of one’s preferred self in that role.

of 33

This paper extends existing conceptual studies of student engagement and disengagement

by identifying what the terms ‘engagement’ and ‘disengagement’ mean. Future research should

shift away from the ‘fluffy’ conceptualisations which tend to permeate the educational literature,

and instead focus on the degree of activation and pleasure when defining and measuring student

engagement and disengagement. In measuring student engagement, researchers should consider

adopting measures offered by Rich et al. (2010) or May et al. (2004) because these measures are

likely to capture student engagement as a highly activated and pleasurable state consisting of

emotional, behavioural, and cognitive dimensions. Consequently, the proposed measures of

student engagement should tap into engagement as a distinct concept – one which is separate to

student disengagement. As far as I am aware, there is no measure of student disengagement as

proposed in this paper. Presently, researchers commonly measure student burnout using

measures such as the MBI – student survey, the Copenhagen burnout inventory – student survey,

or the Oldenburg burnout inventory – student survey (see Maroco and Campos 2012 for a

comparison of these measures). In addition to student burnout, educational researchers often

speak of apathy and alienation, but there is a lack of consistency regarding the measurement of

these concepts (Christman 2014; Barnhardt and Ginns 2014).

To advance future research on student disengagement, there is a need for a single

measure that can capture the conceptual features of student disengagement as proposed in this

paper. To develop a measure of student disengagement that is aligned with the present paper’s

conceptualisation, three key points should be noted. First, the measure should capture the

physical, cognitive, and emotional dimensions. Second, the measure should consider integrating

the educational concepts of disengagement that describe low activation withdrawal behaviours,

i.e., burnout, apathy, and alienation (see Cooke (1994) for the Burbach’s University Alienation

of 33

Scale). Finally, the measure should explicitly capture the defensive behaviour of one’s preferred

self, perhaps by building on the alienation concept proposed by Mann (2001). Overall, the

recommendations given in this section align the measurement of engagement and disengagement

with the conceptualisations proposed in this paper. This alignment is crucial for shifting student

engagement and disengagement research from a messy theoretical melting pot towards a concept

characterised by conceptual and operational clarity.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express a sincere thanks to Dr. Kamal Birdi, Professor Ute Stephan, Dr. Malcolm

Patterson, and two anonymous reviewers for their feedback on this paper.

References

Allen, M., J. Bourhis, N. Burrell, and E. Mabry. 2002. “Comparing Student Satisfaction with

Distance Education to Traditional Classrooms in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis.”

American Journal of Distance Education 16 (2): 83–97.

doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1602_3.

Alzahem, A. M., H. T. van der Molen, A. H. Alaujan, H. G. Schmidt, and M. H. Zamakhshary.

2011. “Stress amongst Dental Students: A Systematic Review.” European Journal of

Dental Education 15 (1): 8–18. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0579.2010.00640.x.

Babcock-Roberson, M. E., and O. J. Strickland. 2010. “The Relationship between Charismatic

Leadership, Work Engagement, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.” Journal of

Psychology 144 (3): 313. doi:10.1080/00223981003648336.

Barnhardt, B., and P. Ginns. 2014. “An Alienation-Based Framework for Student Experience in

Higher Education: New Interpretations of Past Observations in Student Learning

Theory.” Higher Education 68 (6): 789–805. doi:10.1007/s10734-014-9744-y.

of 33

Blumer, H. 1940. “The Problem of the Concept in Social Psychology.” American Journal of

Sociology 45 (5): 707–19.

Boekaerts, M. 1999. “Self-Regulated Learning: Where We Are Today.” International Journal of

Educational Research 31 (6): 445–57. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00014-2.

Brown, S. P., and T. W. Leigh. 1996. “A New Look at Psychological Climate and Its

Relationship to Job Involvement, Effort, and Performance.” Journal of Applied

Psychology 81 (4): 358–68.

Case, J. M. 2007. “Alienation and Engagement: Development of an Alternative Theoretical

Framework for Understanding Student Learning.” Higher Education 55 (3): 321–32.

doi:10.1007/s10734-007-9057-5.

Cassidy, S. 2011. “Self-Regulated Learning in Higher Education: Identifying Key Component

Processes.” Studies in Higher Education 36 (8): 989–1000.

doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.503269.

Christman, D. 2014. “Student Apathy and Disengagement in American Higher Education:

Growing Problem or Campus Myth?”

http://www.fandm.edu/uploads/files/672467760263061773-christman-junto-paper-1314-

original.pdf.

Cole, M. S., F. Walter, A. G. Bedeian, and E. H. O’Boyle. 2012. “Job Burnout and Employee

Engagement: A Meta-Analytic Examination of Construct Proliferation.” Journal of

Management 38 (5): 1550–81. doi:10.1177/0149206311415252.

Cooke, D. K. 1994. “The Factor Structure and Predictive Validity of Burbach’s University

Alienation Scale.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 54 (4): 973–82.

doi:10.1177/0013164494054004014.

of 33

D’Mello, S. 2013. “A Selective Meta-Analysis on the Relative Incidence of Discrete Affective

States during Learning with Technology.” Journal of Educational Psychology 105 (4):

1082–99. doi:10.1037/a0032674.

Ferla, J., M. Valcke, and G. Schuyten. 2009. “Student Models of Learning and Their Impact on

Study Strategies.” Studies in Higher Education 34 (2): 185–202.

doi:10.1080/03075070802528288.

Fredricks, J. A., P. C. Blumenfeld, and A. H. Paris. 2004. “School Engagement: Potential of the

Concept, State of the Evidence.” Review of Educational Research 74 (1): 59–109.

“From Benchmarks to Engagement Indicators and High-Impact Practices.” 2015. NSSE.

http://nsse.indiana.edu/pdf/Benchmarks%20to%20Indicators.pdf.

Goetz, T., A. Zirngibl, R. Pekrun, and N. Hall. 2003. “Emotions, Learning and Achievement

from an Educational, Psychological Perspective.” In Learning Emotions: The Influence

of Affective Factors on Classroom Learning, edited by P. Mayring and C. Von Rhoeneck.

Peter Lang.

Harter, J. K., F. L. Schmidt, and T. L. Hayes. 2002. “Business-Unit-Level Relationship between

Employee Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes: A Meta-

Analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (2): 268–79.

Heikkilä, A., and K. Lonka. 2006. “Studying in Higher Education: Students’ Approaches to

Learning, Self‐regulation, and Cognitive Strategies.” Studies in Higher Education 31 (1):

99–117. doi:10.1080/03075070500392433.

Jimerson, S., E. Campos, and J. Greif. 2003. “Toward an Understanding of Definitions and

Measures of School Engagement and Related Terms.” The California School

Psychologist 8: 7–27.

of 33

Johns, G., and A. M. Saks. 2007. Organizational Behaviour: Understanding and Managing Life

at Work. 7th ed. Toronto, Ontario: Prentice Hall.

Kahn, W. A. 1990. “Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at

Work.” The Academy of Management Journal 33 (4): 692–724. doi:10.2307/256287.

Kahu, E. R. 2013. “Framing Student Engagement in Higher Education.” Studies in Higher

Education 38 (5): 758–73. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.598505.

Kezar, A. J., and J. Kinzie. 2006. “Examining the Ways Institutions Create Student Engagement:

The Role of Mission.” Journal of College Student Development 47 (2): 149–72.

doi:10.1353/csd.2006.0018.

Larsen, R. J., and E. Diener. 1992. “Promises and Problems with the Circumplex Model of

Emotion.” In Emotion, 13:25–59. Review of Personality and Social Psychology.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Macey, W., and B. Schneider. 2008. “The Meaning of Employee Engagement.” Industrial and

Organizational Psychology 1 (3): 3–30. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x.

Mann, S. J. 2001. “Alternative Perspectives on the Student Experience: Alienation and

Engagement.” Studies in Higher Education 26 (1): 7–19.

doi:10.1080/03075070020030689.

Maroco, J., and J. Campos. 2012. “Defining the Student Burnout Construct: A Structural

Analysis from Three Burnout Inventories.” Psychological Reports 111 (3): 814–30.

doi:10.2466/14.10.20.PR0.111.6.814-830.

Marton, F., and R. Saljo. 1997. “Approaches to Learning.” In The Experience of Learning, edited

by F. Marton, D. Hounsell, and N.J. Entwistle, 3rd (internet) edition, 39–58. Edinburgh:

University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.

of 33

http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/institute-academic-development/learning-

teaching/staff/advice/researching/publications/experience-of-learning.

Maslach, C., and S. E. Jackson. 1981. “The Measurement of Experienced Burnout.” Journal of

Organizational Behavior 2 (2): 99–113. doi:10.1002/job.4030020205.

Maslach, C., W. B. Schaufeli, and M. P. Leiter. 2001. “Job Burnout.” Annual Review of

Psychology 52 (1): 397. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397.

May, D. R., R. L. Gilson, and L. M. Harter. 2004. “The Psychological Conditions of

Meaningfulness, Safety and Availability and the Engagement of the Human Spirit at

Work.” Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology 77 (1): 11–37.

doi:10.1348/096317904322915892.

Newmann, F. M. 1992. Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Nystrand, M., and A. Gamoran. 1991. “Instructional Discourse, Student Engagement, and

Literature Achievement.” Research in the Teaching of English 25 (3): 261–90.

Pekrun, R., A. J. Elliot, and M. A. Maier. 2009. “Achievement Goals and Achievement

Emotions: Testing a Model of Their Joint Relations with Academic Performance.”

Journal of Educational Psychology 101 (1): 115–35. doi:10.1037/a0013383.

Peper, R.J., and R.E. Mayer. 1978. “Note Taking as a Generative Activity.” Journal of

Educational Psychology 70 (4): 514–22.

Peper, R.J., and R.E. Mayer. 1986. “Generative Effects of Note-Taking during Science

Lectures.” Journal of Educational Psychology 78 (1): 34–38.

Pike, G. R. 2006. “The Convergent and Discriminant Validity of NSSE Scalelet Scores.”

Journal of College Student Development 47 (5): 550–63. doi:10.1353/csd.2006.0061.

of 33

Porter, S. R. 2010. “Do College Student Surveys Have Any Validity?” In . Chicago: Association

for Institutional Research. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED520485.

Ramsden, P. 1979. “Student Learning and Perceptions of the Academic Environment.” Higher

Education 8 (4): 411–27.

Rich, B. L., J. A. Lepine, and E. R. Crawford. 2010. “Job Engagement: Antecedents and Effects

on Job Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 53 (3): 617–35.

doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988.

Schaufeli, W. B., and A. B. Bakker. 2004. “Job Demands, Job Resources, and Their Relationship

with Burnout and Engagement: A Multi-Sample Study.” Journal of Organizational

Behavior 25 (3): 293–315. doi:10.1002/job.248.

Schaufeli, W. B., M. P. Leiter, and C. Maslach. 2009. “Burnout: 35 Years of Research and

Practice.” Career Development International 14 (3): 204–20.

doi:10.1108/13620430910966406.

Schaufeli, W. B., I. M. Martínez, A. M. Pinto, M. Salanova, and A. B. Bakker. 2002. “Burnout

and Engagement in University Students: A Cross-National Study.” Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology 33 (5): 464–81. doi:10.1177/0022022102033005003.

Schaufeli, W. B., M. Salanova, V. Gonzales-Roma, and A. B. Bakker. 2002. “The Measurement

of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach.”

Journal of Happiness Studies 3 (1): 71–92. doi:10.1023/A:1015630930326.

Shuck, B., and K. Wollard. 2010. “Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of the

Foundations.” Human Resource Development Review 9 (1): 89–110.

doi:10.1177/1534484309353560.

of 33

Stephanou, G., P. Kariotoglou, and K. Dinas. 2011. “University Students’ Emotions in Lectures:

The Effect of Competence Beliefs, Value Beliefs and Perceived Task-Difficulty, and the

Impact on Academic Performance.” International Journal of Learning 18 (1): 45–72.

Torenbeek, M., E. Jansen, and C. Suhre. 2012. “Predicting Undergraduates’ Academic

Achievement: The Role of the Curriculum, Time Investment and Self-Regulated

Learning.” Studies in Higher Education, 1–14. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.640996.

Towers-Perrin. 2003. “Working Today: Understanding What Drives Employee Engagement.”

http://www.keepem.com/doc_files/Towers_Perrin_Talent_2003(TheFinal).pdf.

Trout, P. A. 1997. “Disengaged Students and the Decline of Academic Standards.” Academic

Questions 10 (2): 46–56. doi:10.1007/s12129-997-1067-3.

Trowler, V., and P. Trowler. 2010. “Student Engagement Evidence Summary.” Higher

Education Academy.

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/studentengagement/StudentEngagementE

videnceSummary.pdf.

Warr, P. 2007. Work, Happiness, and Unhappiness. 1 edition. Mahwah, N.J: Psychology Press.

Watson, D., L. A. Clark, and A. Tellegen. 1988. “Development and Validation of Brief Measures

of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales.” Journal of Personality 54 (6):

1063–70.

Zimmerman, B. 2002. “Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview.” Theory into

Practice 41 (2): 64.

Word count: 0

of 33

Tables

Table 1. National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Concepts and Sample Indicators.

Concept Sample indicatorsAcademic challenge

During your school year, how often have you reviewed your notes after class?During the current school year, how often have you evaluated what others have concluded from numerical information?

Learning with peers During the current school year, how often have you had discussions with … people with religious beliefs other than your own?During the school year, how often have you asked another student to help you understand course [or module in the UK context] material?

Experiences with faculty

During the current school year, to what extent have your instructors … used examples or illustrations to explain difficult points?During the current school year, how often have you talked about your career plans with a faculty member?

Campus environment

Indicate the quality of your interactions with (a) academic advisors, (b) student services staff, (c) other administrative staff and offices, etc.How much does your institution emphasise … attending campus activities and events?

introduction - paultbalwant.files.wordpress.com€¦ · web viewto do so, i first introduce the...

Documents