Factor Focus: Engagement

The "Factor Focus" series is designed to review various noncognitive factors and their relevance to student success.

Engagement is a ubiquitous word in higher education. While most often related to NSSE and other offspring of George Kuh's work on student success, it emerges in lots of circles. (Indeed, I often regret choosing to use the word as part of the ISSAQ model, but here we are.)

Perhaps the term keeps popping up because college is not a passive experience - particularly in comparison to high school. Students are expected to participate, interact, persist, and respond to expectations that are often implicit rather than explicit. Over time, it becomes clear that Engagement is not simply a byproduct of motivation or ability, but a core mechanism through which learning, persistence, and development occur.

What Is Engagement?

Within the ISSAQ framework, Engagement refers to the degree to which students actively participate in their academic experience. Focusing on things like attendance, timeliness, assignment completion, and participation, Engagement is inherently a behavioral domain. These behaviors have occasionally been related to the concepts of College Knowledge or The Hidden Curriculum (Margolis, 2001) because they are essential to learning and success, but not always explicitly communicated.

Kevin Li and colleagues (2013) at the City Colleges of Chicago conducted a study that really cemented the behavioral aspect of Engagement for me. Studying developmental math classes across four City Colleges campuses, the team examined the relationship between preparation (i.e., placement test score), classroom behavior, and passing rates. In this case, Engagement was defined by five behaviors, rated by faculty using a standardized rubric: showing up to class, completing assignments, getting things done on time, asking questions, and participating in class discussions.

As you might expect, both preparation and engagement were both positively related to passing rates, but more fascinating was the interaction of the two. For students who had high preparation, effort was related to success: high preparation/high engagement students passed 92% of the time, compared to 59% of students with high preparation and low engagement. However, among students with low preparation, those with high engagement passed 74% of the time, compared to only 19% of students with low effort and low engagement.

Three things I take away from this study:

• A meaningful, behavioral definition of engagement.

• From a student success perspective, if I was trying to get a student with low preparation to pass a math course, I think I have a much better chance of getting them to show up to class every day than I do helping them learn trigonometry.

• The interaction between these two factors is a concrete demonstration of how noncognitive factors often matter, but they typically matter more for many of the students we're trying to support (in this case, under-prepared students).

National efforts such as the National Survey of Student Engagement and the Community College Survey of Student Engagement emphasize active and collaborative learning, defining engagement as the extent to which students participate in class, interact with others, and invest time and effort in educationally purposeful activities (Kuh et al., 2008; McClenney et al., 2012).

Importantly, within ISSAQ, Engagement is framed as a behavioral factor, not a personality trait. Students are not inherently “engaged” or “disengaged.” Rather, Engagement reflects how students respond to academic expectations, structures, and opportunities. This distinction matters because behaviors can be shaped, supported, and taught.

How Does Engagement Impact Success?

A substantial body of research links engagement to academic performance, persistence, and degree completion. Meta-analytic and large-scale studies consistently show that students who are more engaged earn higher grades, demonstrate stronger comprehension of course material, and are more likely to persist from year to year (Fredricks et al., 2004; Kuh et al., 2008; Tinto, 2012).

Engagement supports learning by promoting active cognitive processing. Students who participate in discussions, collaborate with peers, and apply concepts are more likely to develop critical thinking, problem-solving, and communication skills that extend beyond individual courses (Fredricks et al., 2004). Engagement is also closely tied to help-seeking behavior. Engaged students are more likely to ask questions, attend office hours, and use academic support services, all of which contribute to stronger academic outcomes.

From a persistence standpoint, Engagement is deeply intertwined with students’ sense of connection to the institution. Tinto (2012) argued that students are more likely to remain enrolled when they feel academically and socially involved. Other validity work found that engagement-related behaviors are closely linked to course performance and early academic momentum, particularly in foundational and developmental coursework (Markle et al., 2013; Li et al., 2013). In this way, Engagement often operates as a mechanism, translating motivation and intention into sustained action over time.

While the embodiment of Engagement is behavioral, there are also key social and emotional implications. For example, given Growth Mindset's focus on effort over ability, "disengagement" may be an indication that students don't connect their effort with success. Additionally, meeting informal expectations (e.g., participation) can be a sign that students show a mastery orientation, focusing on the learning of material rather than simply meeting requirements and getting the grade (Dweck, 2006; Ames, 1992; Elliott & Dweck, 1988).

How Can We Foster Engagement?

Institutions have meaningful leverage to influence Engagement through policies, structures, and instructional practices. Fostering Engagement is less about convincing students to care and more about creating environments in which engagement is expected, supported, and reinforced.

Active Learning and Instructional Design. Active learning strategies such as collaborative projects, problem-based learning, and interactive lectures have consistently been shown to increase engagement and learning outcomes (Prince, 2004). At an institutional level, this means providing faculty with professional development, instructional resources, and flexibility to redesign courses in ways that invite participation rather than passive consumption.

Supportive Learning Environments. Students are more likely to engage when they feel safe, supported, and valued. Institutions can foster Engagement by ensuring access to advising, mental health services, and academic support, while also communicating clear expectations about participation and involvement. When students experience support as proactive rather than punitive, engagement becomes a more attainable norm.

Faculty–Student Interaction. Meaningful interaction with faculty is one of the strongest predictors of student engagement (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Institutions can support this by promoting smaller class sizes where possible, valuing mentorship and advising in workload models, and creating structured opportunities for interaction beyond formal class time.

Co-Curricular and Out-of-Class Engagement. Engagement does not stop at the classroom door. Participation in student organizations, leadership programs, service learning, and learning communities can reinforce academic engagement by helping students connect coursework to broader goals and identities. Institutions that intentionally align co-curricular experiences with academic learning help students see engagement as an integrated part of college life.

What Can Faculty Do to Support Engagement? As you may have guessed from the recommendations to this point, faculty play a key role in the development of Engagement. Creating inclusive classroom environments, using active learning strategies, and providing regular, constructive feedback can significantly increase students’ willingness to participate. Simple practices such as learning students’ names, explaining the purpose of activities, and explicitly inviting questions can reduce uncertainty and lower barriers to engagement.

Faculty can also help students interpret engagement expectations that may otherwise remain implicit. Being transparent about why participation matters and how students can engage effectively helps demystify the hidden curriculum, particularly for first-generation and non-traditional students (Margolis, 2001).

Engagement and Traditionally Underserved Students

Engagement is particularly consequential for students from traditionally underserved populations. First-generation students may be unfamiliar with norms around participation and faculty interaction, while students from low-income or marginalized backgrounds may face financial, social, or cultural barriers that limit engagement opportunities (Pascarella et al., 2004; Hurtado et al., 2011).

Research suggests that when institutions intentionally design engagement opportunities that are inclusive and accessible, disparities in outcomes can be reduced (Hurtado et al., 2012; Kuh et al., 2010). Flexible scheduling, inclusive pedagogy, targeted mentoring, and culturally responsive practices can help ensure that Engagement functions as a pathway to success rather than a gatekeeping mechanism.

Conclusion

Engagement sits at the heart of the college experience. It is the visible expression of students’ investment in learning and their connection to the academic community. Within ISSAQ, Engagement captures these behaviors in a way that allows institutions to identify patterns early and respond intentionally.

By fostering Engagement through supportive environments, thoughtful instructional design, and meaningful relationships, colleges and universities can move beyond assumptions about motivation and instead create conditions in which more students are positioned to succeed. When students are engaged, learning becomes active, persistence becomes possible, and college becomes a place where effort is met with opportunity.

References

• Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261 

• Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.

• Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

• Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.5 

• 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

• Hurtado, S., Alvarez, C. L., Guillermo-Wann, C., Cuellar, M., & Arellano, L. (2011). A model for diverse learning environments. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 41–122). Springer.

• Hurtado, S., Cuellar, M., & Guillermo-Wann, C. (2012). Quantitative measures of students’ sense of validation: Advancing the study of diverse learning environments. Enrollment Management Journal, 6(2), 53–71.

• Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2008). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.

• Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2010). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(2), 182–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2010.11779016 

• Li, K., Zelenka, R., Buonaguidi, L., Beckman, R., Casillas, A., Crouse, J., & Robbins, S. (2013). Readiness, behavior, and foundational mathematics course success. Journal of Developmental Education, 37(1), 14–26.

• Margolis, E. (Ed.). (2001). The hidden curriculum in higher education. Routledge.

• Markle, R., Olivera-Aguilar, M., Jackson, T., Noeth, R., & Robbins, S. (2013). Examining evidence of reliability, validity, and fairness for the SuccessNavigator assessment (ETS Research Report No. RR-13-12). Educational Testing Service.

• McClenney, K. M., Marti, C. N., & Adkins, C. (2012). Student engagement and student outcomes: Key findings from the Community College Survey of Student Engagement. Center for Community College Student Engagement.

• Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249–284. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2004.0016

• Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x

• Tinto, V. (2012). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. University of Chicago Press.