Engagement Isn’t What It Used to Be ... And That’s Not the Real Problem

During a recent conversation with a faculty friend of mine, the topic of Engagement came up. For those unaffiliated with our ISSAQ platform, when we talk about Engagement, we are referring to a set of observable behaviors that reflect students’ active participation in college-level learning. These includethings like attending class consistently, participating in discussions, completing assignments on time, collaborating with peers, and utilizing office hours. These behaviors are:

• Often different from what students experienced in high school;

• Critically important to academic success in college; and

• Not evenly distributed across students, particularly when we consider differences in social and cultural capital.

Continuing-generation students frequently arrive on campus with an implicit understanding of these norms. They may have absorbed them through family conversations or prior exposure to college environments. First-generation students, by contrast, are often learning these behavioral expectations explicitly for the first time. Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1986) described this as cultural capital — the tacit knowledge and dispositions that allow individuals to navigate institutions effectively. More recently, Stephens et al. (2012) demonstrated how mismatches between students’ backgrounds and institutional norms can create invisible barriers to success.

So yes, Engagement — as behavior — matters. But here’s the tension.

“Students just don’t do that anymore,” my friend said. He was referring to hand-raising. Asking questions. Engaging in discussions. Making eye contact. Initiating conversations after class. Those behaviors, he argued, have largely disappeared from his classroom. Students still “engage,” but more often through email, learning management systems, or other virtual means.

And he’s not alone in that observation. The question, however, is not whether behavior has changed. The question is whether the underlying psychology has changed.

The Pandemic, Smartphones, and AI

There are legitimate reasons why classroom behavior looks different today. First, the pandemic forced many of today’s college students into fully virtual learning environments during formative academic years. For students entering or already in high school in 2020, this period shaped their understanding of what it means to “be a student.” Participation was often asynchronous. Communication was digital. Expectations - both behavioral and academic - shifted dramatically. Emerging research suggests that the pandemic years were associated with declines in academic engagement and increases in anxiety and disconnection among students (Kuhfeld et al., 2022; Son et al., 2020).

Second, smartphones have fundamentally reshaped communication norms. Since the iPhone’s introduction in 2007, today’s students have grown up in a world where digital interaction is not supplementary - it's primary... if not integral. Scholars such as Turkle (2015) have argued that technology does not eliminate connection; it reshapes how connection is expressed. Texting, social media, and online communities have become default modes of interaction. Face-to-face conversation is no longer the only — or even dominant — medium for social exchange.

Third, artificial intelligence is now entering the picture. While much of the higher education conversation has focused on AI’s implications for academic integrity and productivity, there is growing awareness that students are also using AI tools for companionship, emotional support, and social interaction. If students are increasingly forming relational patterns through mediated environments, we should not be surprised that interpersonal behavior in classrooms looks different.

But here is the critical point: Human psychological needs have not changed.

Baumeister and Leary (1995) argued decades ago that the need to belong is a fundamental human motivation. Self-Determination Theory similarly identifies relatedness as a basic psychological need essential for well-being and functioning (Ryan & Deci, 2000). These needs are not generational. They are not technological. They are human. While the medium may change, the need does not.

When We Confuse the Construct with Its Historical Expression

This is where we must be careful. When faculty observe fewer raised hands or lower participation in traditional formats, it is tempting to conclude that students are less engaged. When students join fewer clubs or attend fewer campus events, it is easy to assume belonging has declined. But we may be confusing constructs with their historical expressions.

Engagement — as a psychological construct — reflects cognitive investment, emotional commitment, and behavioral participation in learning (Fredricks et al., 2004; Kuh, 2008). Sense of Belonging reflects feeling accepted, valued, and supported within an environment (Walton & Cohen, 2011). But hand-raising is not Engagement. Club membership is not Belonging. They are behavioral proxies, which are are useful - until they are not.

Consider an example outside higher education. My brother has spent years building friendships through online gaming communities. If you’ve never been part of that world, you might assume those relationships are superficial because they are virtual. Yet I’ve watched him attend weddings of people he met online, support them through grief, and maintain friendships spanning decades. The psychological construct (i.e., connection) is fully present. The medium is simply different.

If students are building connection in online spaces, forming study groups over text, or engaging with course material asynchronously but deeply, we must be cautious about declaring a decline simply because we do not see the behaviors we expect.

So what should we do? What This Means for Higher Education

First, we must resist the instinct to treat symptoms instead of underlying conditions. If we respond to reduced hand-raising by mandating participation without understanding students’ communication norms, we may increase compliance but not engagement. If we lament declining club membership without examining how students now form community, we risk misdiagnosing the problem.

Second, we need better data and better measurement. Institutional research and student success offices must distinguish between surface behaviors and underlying constructs. Are students psychologically invested? Do they feel supported and valued? Those questions matter more than whether they conform to traditional participation scripts.

Third, we must adapt. Higher education is facing scrutiny from multiple directions — public perception, funding pressures, political challenges. The mistake we cannot afford to make is declaring that our historical expectations are the only legitimate ones and that students who do not conform are simply “unfit for college.”

That narrative is not new. But it has rarely served institutions (or students) well. Adaptation does not mean lowering standards. It means clarifying what we are actually trying to develop. If our goal is deep learning, psychological investment, and authentic belonging, then we must design environments that cultivate those outcomes even as the behaviors that represent them evolve.

Researchers have a role to play in understanding these shifts. Campus leaders must signal that adaptation is not optional. Centers for faculty development and advising must equip educators with tools to recognize and respond to new patterns of engagement. Institutional leaders must ensure that our metrics capture what truly matters. There will not be a part of campus untouched.

The Real Problem

Engagement isn’t what it used to be - But that’s not the real problem. The real risk is misinterpreting behavioral change as psychological decline. If we treat the symptom (declining visible participation) we may solve the wrong problem. But if we focus on the underlying constructs - psychological investment, belonging, relatedness - we can preserve what matters while adapting how it is expressed. While the behaviors have changed, the needs have not, and our success in higher education will depend on whether we are wise enough to know the difference.

References

• Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.

• 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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

• Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities.

• Kuhfeld, M., Soland, J., & Lewis, K. (2022). Test score patterns across three COVID-19–impacted school years. Educational Researcher, 51(7), 500–506. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X221109178

• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

• Son, C., Hegde, S., Smith, A., Wang, X., & Sasangohar, F. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on college students’ mental health in the United States. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(9), e21279. https://doi.org/10.2196/21279

• Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C., & Covarrubias, R. (2012). Unseen disadvantage: How American universities’ focus on independence undermines the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1178–1197. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027143

• Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. Penguin Press.

• Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331(6023), 1447–1451. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198364