Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of Student Engagement on Affective Learning: Evidence from a Large Indian University

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study has two objectives. The first objective is to examine the mediating role of intellectual engagement in the relationship between online engagement and affective learning. The second objective is to investigate the mediating role of academic engagement in the relationship between intellectual engagement and affective learning as well as between online engagement and affective learning. The study sample comprises of undergraduate students studying in a large private Indian university. The results of structural analysis using 280 responses collected from the undergraduate students support the hypotheses that academic and intellectual engagement constructs mediate the relationship between online engagement and affective learning. Moreover, it was found that compared to intellectual engagement, the role of online engagement is statistically more central to enhancing academic engagement and in turn affective learning. The findings encourage educators to provide academic settings backed by online resources instead of depending only on online resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). How classroom environment and student engagement affect learning in internet-based MBA courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(4), 9–26. doi:10.1177/108056990006300402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, M., & Kydd, C. (1997). Individual characteristics associated with world wide web use: an empirical study of playfulness and motivation. ACM SIGMIS Database, 28(2), 53–62. doi:10.1145/264701.264705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., Davis, F. D., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Development and test of a theory of technological learning and usage. Human relations, 45(7), 659–686. doi:10.1177/001872679204500702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beer, C., Clark, K., & Jones, D. (2010). Indicators of engagement. Proceedings Ascilite Sydney, 75–86.

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, N. D., & Akcaoglu, M. (2014). “I see smart people!”: using Facebook to supplement cognitive and affective learning in the university mass lecture. The Internet and Higher Education, 23, 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • British Council (2014). Understanding India - the future of higher education and opportunities for international cooperation. Retrieved from http://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/britishcouncil.uk2/files/understanding_india_report.pdf

  • Brown, M., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulger, M. E., Mayer, R. E., Almeroth, K. C., & Blau, S. D. (2008). Measuring learner engagement in computer-equipped college classrooms. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(2), 129–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, S. M., & Nutt, C. L. (2008). Academic advising in the new global century: supporting student engagement and learning outcomes achievement. Peer Review, 10(1), 4–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–32. doi:10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Ackerman, P. L. (2006). Ability and personality correlates of general knowledge. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(3), 419–429. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, P. S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: the impact of web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222–1232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39(4), 323–340. doi:10.1080/03634529009378813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121–141. doi:10.1080/02602930600801878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conner, J. O., & Pope, D. C. (2013). Not just robo-students: why full engagement matters and how schools can promote it. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(9), 1426–1442. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9948-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319 .Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.10.2307.249008&site=eds-live

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixson, M. D. (2012). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: what do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumont, R. A. (1996). Teaching and learning in cyberspace. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 39(4), 192–204. doi:10.1109/47.544575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (1997). Gender differences in the perception and use of e–mail: an extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS Quarterly, 389–400.

  • Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic performance. Focus on Behavior Analysis in Education, 58–88.

  • Gregory, A., Allen, J. P., Mikami, A. Y., Hafen, C. A., & Pianta, R. C. (2014). Effects of a professional development program on behavioral engagement of students in middle and high school. Psychology in the Schools, 51(2), 143–163. doi:10.1002/pits.21741.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, M. (2015). Corporate social responsibility, employee–company identification, and organizational commitment: mediation by employee engagement. Current Psychology, 1–9. doi:10.1007/s12144-015-9389-8.

  • Gupta, M., & Kumar, Y. (2015). Justice and employee engagement: examining the mediating role of trust in Indian B-schools. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 7(1), 89–103. doi:10.1108/APJBA-04-2014-0048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, M., & Sayeed, O. (2016). Social responsibility and commitment in management institutes: mediation by engagement. Business: Theory and Practice/Verslas: Teorija ir Praktika, 17(3), 280–287. doi:10.3846/btp.2016.633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannon, J., & D’Netto, B. (2007). Cultural diversity online: student engagement with learning technologies. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(5), 418–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hepplestone, S., Holden, G., Irwin, B., Parkin, H. J., & Thorpe, L. (2011). Using technology to encourage student engagement with feedback: a literature review. Research in Learning Technology, 19(2), 117–127. doi:10.1080/21567069.2011.586677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrington, J., Oliver, R. and Reeves, T.C. (2002) Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. In: ASCILITE 2002 Conference, 8–11 December 2002, Auckland, New Zealand pp. 279–286.

  • Hu, S., & Kuht, G. D. (2002). Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful activities: the influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 43(5), 555–575. doi:10.2307/40197272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanuka, H. (2006). An exploration into facilitating higher levels of learning in a text–based internet learning environment using diverse instructional strategies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3), 00–00. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00256.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement theory: a framework for technology–based teaching and learning. Educational Technology, 38(5), 20–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krathwohl, D., Bloom, B., & Masia, B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook II: affective domain. New York: McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, K. (2005). Understanding and promoting student engagement in university learning communities. Paper presented as keynote address: Engaged, Inert or Otherwise Occupied, 21–22.

  • Krause, K. L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493–505. doi:10.1080/02602930701698892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24–32. doi:10.1080/00091380309604090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeFebvre, L., & Allen, M. (2014). Teacher immediacy and student learning: an examination of lecture/laboratory and self-contained course sections. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(2), 29–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, J., Han, X., Yang, J., & Cheng, J. (2015). Examining the necessary condition for engagement in an online learning environment based on learning analytics approach: the role of the instructor. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 26–34. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.09.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H., & Maki, W. S. (2007). Online courses (pp. 527–552). Second Edition: Handbook of Applied Cognition. doi:10.1002/9780470713181.ch20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marino, M. T., Gotch, C. M., Israel, M., Vasquez III, E., Basham, J. D., & Becht, K. (2014). UDL in the middle school science classroom: can video games and alternative text heighten engagement and learning for students with learning disabilities? Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(2), 87–99. doi:10.1177/0731948713503963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mokoena, S. (2013). Engagement with and participation in online discussion forums. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology–TOJET, 12(2), 97–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J., & Marra, R. (2005). A comparative analysis of online discussion participation protocols. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 191–212. doi:10.1080/15391523.2005.10782456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J., & Shelton, K. (2013). Social and student engagement and support: the Sloan–c quality scorecard for the administration of online programs. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1), 53–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pace, C. R. (1984). Measuring the quality of college student experiences. An account of the development and use of the college student experiences questionnaire. Center for the Study of Evaluation: University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED255099.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pandey, J., & Nagesh, P. (2013). A study on student engagement and its linkages to traditional and reported measures of performance. Business and Management, 5(1), 285–302.

  • Pandey, J., & Singh, M. (2015). Deciphering the distance between distance education and working professionals in difficult geographies. The Qualitative Report, 20(5), 596–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, J., & Taylor, L. (2011). Student engagement: What do we know and what should we do? Report prepared for AISI University Partners: University of Alberta. Retrieved June, 2014, from http://education.alberta.ca/media/6459431/student_engagement_literature_review_2011.pdf

  • Pathak, D., & Pandey, J. (2012). Use of e-learning in Uttarakhand school education system: case study of open source e-learning tools for fundamental mathematics and sciences. International Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 3(1), 80–82.

  • Pittaway, S. M. (2012). Student and Staff Engagement: Developing an Engagement Framework in a Faculty of Education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(4), 37–45. doi:10.14221/ajte.2012v37n4.8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Planning Commission (2013). Twelfth five year plan (2012–2017) social sectors. (publication no. 978–81–321-1368-3 (PB)). India: Sage Retrieved from http://planningcommission.gov.in/plans/planrel/12thplan/pdf/12fyp_vol3.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, S., Kim, S. S., & Morris, J. G. (2014). The central role of engagement in online communities. Information Systems Research, 25(3), 528–546. doi:10.1287/isre.2014.0525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1987). Power in the classroom VII: linking behavior alteration techniques to cognitive learning. Communication Education, 36(1), 1–12. doi:10.1080/03634528709378636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101–109. doi:10.3200/JOEB.84.2.101-109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Shneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158–176. doi:10.1521/scpq.18.2.158.21860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (2002). Making differences: a table of learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 34(6), 36–44. doi:10.1080/00091380209605567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soria, K. M., & Stebleton, M. J. (2012). First–generation students’ academic engagement and retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(6), 673–685. doi:10.1080/13562517.2012.666735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su, B., Bonk, C. J., Magjuka, R. J., Liu, X., & Lee, S. (2005). The importance of interaction in web–based education: a program–level case study of online MBA courses. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 4(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thien, L. M., & Razak, N. A. (2013). Academic coping, friendship quality, and student engagement associated with student quality of school life: a partial least square analysis. Social Indicators Research, 112(3), 679–708. doi:10.1007/s11205-012-0077-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilak, J. B. (2014). Private higher education in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 49(40), 32–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrisi–Steele, G., & Davis, G. (2000). "A website for my subject": The experiences of some academics’ engagement with educational designers in a team based approach to developing online learning materials. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(3), 283–301. doi:10.14742/ajet.1841.

    Google Scholar 

  • University Grants Commisison. (2012). Annual report 2011–2012. Retrieved from http://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/Annual_Report_2011–2012_English_Final.pdf

  • Willms, J. D., Friesen, S. & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today? Transforming classrooms through social, academic and intellectual engagement. (First National Report) Toronto: Canadian Education Association. Retrieved from http://m.cea-ace.ca/sites/cea-ace.ca/files/cea-2009-wdydist-summary.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IFHE University, Hyderabad, PO Box 501203, Donthanapally, Shankarapalli Road, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

    Manish Gupta

  2. Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, PO Box 380015, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

    Jatin Pandey

Authors
  1. Manish Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jatin Pandey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manish Gupta.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The Authors declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gupta, M., Pandey, J. Impact of Student Engagement on Affective Learning: Evidence from a Large Indian University. Curr Psychol 37, 414–421 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9522-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9522-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation