A Subject-Level Framework of Student Engagement in Higher Education

This piece is authored by Dr Abhishek Dwivedi, Associate Professor of Marketing, School of Business

Research on instructor actions in higher education is fragmented, often treating lectures (Tronchoni et al., 2022), tutorials (Merkus and Schafmeister, 2021), group or collaborative learning activities (Freeman et al., 2014), assessment and feedback (Boud and Molloy, 2013; Evans, 2013), and technology integration (Bond et al., 2020) as discrete practices, without advancing a unified model of instructor and student engagement. This paper proposes a subject-level instructor and student engagement framework, synthesizing work engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2002), community engagement (Bowen et al., 2010), and learning design (Theelen and van Breukelen, 2022), reframing engagement as a dynamic, relational process.

In this framework (depicted in Figure 1 below), students are seen as active contributors who bring energy, emotional commitment, and cognitive focus to their learning. Instructors, in turn, are not just content deliverers but designers of experiences—responsible for shaping the conditions that enable engagement to emerge and be sustained throughout a term. This approach links instructor behaviours directly to forms and outcomes of student engagement, offering a practical lens for teaching and subject design.

The framework is structured around an input-process-output logic, tempered by contextual factors. Inputs refer to instructor actions and learning design, which represent the supply side of engagement. Drawing from the community engagement literature, these actions are categorised along a continuum: transactional (e.g., information delivery), transitional (e.g., tutorials and discussions), and transformational (e.g., co-creative and interactive learning activities). These are not rigid categories but flexible approaches that can be deployed strategically across a semester. Therefore, we define instructor engagement as a continuum of L&T activities deployed to meet the explicit and implicit learning needs of students enrolled in a subject.

Processes reflect the dimensions of student engagement, adapted from work engagement theory. These include vigour (effort and persistence), dedication (commitment and enthusiasm), and absorption (immersion and focus); consistent with Fredricks et al.’s (2004) view of student engagement into behavioral, emotional, and cognitive dimensions respectively. Together, these dimensions capture both visible indicators—such as in-class participation and LMS activity—as well as hidden indicators, such as intrinsic motivation or interest. Recognising this balance is key to designing experiences that go beyond surface-level activity.

Outputs refer to outcomes of student engagement. These include assessment grades, overall academic performance, satisfaction scores, willingness to recommend the subject, and evidence of deep learning. Such outputs may serve as feedback for instructors, helping to assess how well the subject design and delivery fostered engagement.

Contextual modifiers—such as the quality of teaching, clarity of materials, and mode of study (e.g., online, blended, in-person)—influence the entire input-process-output chain. These factors shape how students experience the subject and must be considered when designing for engagement.

The framework has several implications for instructors. First, it encourages reflection on whether their teaching practice primarily delivers content or also facilitates deeper student ownership of learning. Second, it highlights the importance of designing tasks that promote curiosity and personal meaning, not just observable activity. Third, it suggests that instructors should aim to build and sustain energy throughout the semester, not only drive students to complete assessments. Fourth, it supports connecting subject activities to long-term learning outcomes that extend beyond the classroom. Finally, it promotes continuous reflection by using the semester itself as a mirror for evaluating and adapting engagement strategies.

Conclusion

This subject-level framework of student engagement redefines teaching in higher education as a dynamic, relational process that integrates fragmented instructor actions into a cohesive model. By synthesizing work engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2002), community engagement (Bowen et al., 2010), and learning design theories (Theelen and van Breukelen, 2022), it positions students as active co-creators and instructors as facilitators of meaningful learning experiences. The framework’s input-process-output structure, tempered by contextual factors, offers a practical guide for designing subjects that foster vigor, dedication, and absorption while promoting deep learning and satisfaction. It challenges transactional teaching paradigms, encouraging instructors to adopt flexible, transformational strategies that cultivate belonging and shared purpose (Felton, 2013; Zepke and Leach, 2010). By emphasizing continuous reflection and adaptation, this model bridges theoretical gaps and provides actionable insights for enhancing engagement across diverse educational contexts, ultimately empowering instructors to create sustained, impactful learning experiences that extend beyond the classroom.

References

Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8

Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462

Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Herremans, I. (2010). When suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 297-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0360-1

Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350

Felten, P. (2013). Principles of good practice in SoTL. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 121–125. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/504206.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., and 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

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Merkus, E., & Schafmeister, F. (2021). The role of in-person tutorials in higher education. Economics Letters, 201, Article 109801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2021.109801

Schaufeli, W. B., et al. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326

Theelen, H., and van Breukelen, D. H. (2022). The didactic and pedagogical design of e‐learning in higher education: A systematic literature review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(5), 1286-1303. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12705

Tronchoni, H., Izquierdo, C., & Anguera, M. T. (2022). A systematic review on lecturing in contemporary university teaching. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 971617. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.971617

Zepke, N., and Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(3), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787410379680