Student engagement is one of the key indicators of student motivation and student outcomes. Wong and colleagues conducted a systemic review including 137 studies to examine how student engagement (i.e., affective, behavioral, and cognitive) is measured and its correlation with academic achievement and subjective well-being (SWB). The review found following subtypes among included studies:
- Affective engagement: divided into (a) relational engagement, (b) affective engagement in school, and (c) affective engagement in learning.
- Behavioral engagement: categorized into (a) participatory and (b) effortful engagement.
- Cognitive engagement included (a) motivational, (b) self-regulatory, and (c) effortful engagement, the latter overlapped with behavioral engagement due to same indicators.
The meta-analysis of 533 effect sizes from 110 studies revealed a moderate correlation between student engagement and academic performance (r=+0.33). Behavioral engagement had the largest correlation (r=+0.39), followed by cognitive (r=+0.31) and affective (r=+0.26). Findings of meta-regression with multiple moderators revealed:
- Teacher reported engagement has a stronger association with academic performance than student reported measures.
- School grades showed a higher effect size than standardized test scores.
- Correlation was stronger when academic achievement was measured in the same year as student engagement.
- Subtype of affective engagement was a significantly moderator, with affective in learning activities showing the largest effect size (r=+0.33). Participatory behavioral engagement also showed a stronger association (r=+0.40) compared to effortful engagement (r=+0.38).
A separate meta-analysis of 158 effect sizes across 18 studies found a significant correlation between student engagement and SWB (r=+0.35). Affective engagement showed the largest effect size (r=+0.40) compared to cognitive (r=+0.35) and behavioral (r=+0.31). Association was significantly smaller when SWB was measured as negative affect (r=-0.20), compared to positive affect (r=+0.36) or life satisfaction (r=+0.39).
The findings emphasize the importance of precisely defining and measuring the subtypes of engagement to avoid overgeneralization and improve conceptual clarity. The study encouraged scholars to refine and clarify the operational definitions used in engagement research.
Source: Wong, Z. Y., Liem, G. A. D., Chan, M., & Datu, J. A. D. (2024). Student engagement and its association with academic achievement and subjective well-being: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 116(1), 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000833