Mediating role of Student Engagement.

Student Engagement as a mediator between Learning

Environment and Student Outcomes

Submitted to:
Research Programs Department
Balkumari, Lalitpur, Nepal

Kathmandu University School of Management

Balkumari, Nepal

Submitted by:
Sabina Baniya Chhetri
Assistant Professor
Kathmandu University School of Management

March, 2019
 Mediating role of Student Engagement.2

Introduction

Student Engagement has started to become a matter of concern even in management

education institutions. Organizations are spending lot of money and time to enhance
employee engagement due to its impact on organizational productivity. Similarly,
management institutions have also started to face the challenge of keeping students engage in
their learning setup. The outcome of disengaged students is the production of graduates with
lack of necessary employability skills. On the other hand, organizations face the challenges of
hiring graduates with suitable skills to perform in the job. Student engagement has been
considered as an important predictor of learning and personal development (Kuh, 2003).
Further, the author emphasized that when students are engaged in education, they develop the
foundation of skills and dispositions that are essential to be productive in future. However,
the challenge lies in engaging students in the classroom setting.
With the evolvement of technology, social interactions, and methods of learning, the
methods that were used ten years ago to engage is not effective in today’s context (Brown,
2014). Management institutions in Nepal also faces the same challenge with the use of
traditional age-old teaching methods. Management education in Nepal started and continued
in the tradition of general social science education in the university system that focused more
on providing theoretical knowledge in management concepts resulting in the production of
degree holders and lacked linkage with professions and professional markets (K.C., 2014).
Further, enough empirical evidences are not available about management education and its
current status in Nepal. However, educators’ experiences challenge in engaging students in
the learning process and the institutions faces the challenge of attracting pool of candidates to
the different management degree programs and place them in different jobs in the labor
market.
High level of student engagement are linked with wide variety of educational
practices and conditions such as goal- oriented student faculty relationship, active and
collaborative learning and environments in the institutions that students feel inclusive and
encouraging (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2006). Most studies in student
engagement have emphasized learning environment as an important factor (Handelsman et al.
2005; Kuh, et al. 2005). Learning Environment ranges from Teacher- Student Interaction,
 Mediating role of Student Engagement.3

Active and Collaborative learning environment, supportive college environment, work-

integrated learning environments and enriching educational experiences (Zepke, 2013;
Fleming & Stanway, 2014 ). Proper learning environment has found to have a positive impact
on student engagement. While research studies ( Roelofs, Visser, & Terwel, 2003; Abrantes,
Seabra, & Lages, 2007) have focused on learning environment in the context of school level,
there are not enough studies that talks about learning environment in the tertiary level.
Further, in the context of Nepal, there are no empirical studies that focus on learning
environment and its effect on different student outcomes for management education.
For management education in the post-graduation level, employability is an integral
outcome that business schools focuses on. The increasing focuses has been towards
employability expectations before graduation, inclusion of employability skills in the
curriculum and the employment that graduates achieve (Rothwell, Jewell, & Hardie, 2009).
Employability is formed by many factors, but education is a major determinant of
employability, especially for graduates. For a new graduates, they need to constantly manage
their employability and secure careers in a challenging labor market. (Donald, Ashleigh, &
Baruch, 2018) . Less is known in the context of least developing nation that offers limited
amount of employment. There are ample of studies ( e.g. Jackson & Wilton, 2017; Fan,
2016) that focuses on employability but there are not many that tries to understand whether
learning environment supports in creating self-perceived employability. Student satisfaction
has always been a favorable outcome as it creates desired experiences among students.
The primary aims of this study is therefore:
• To examine the impact of learning environment on management students’
self-perceived employability
• To ascertain the impact of learning environment on management students’
satisfaction
• To examine the mediating role of student engagement in the relationships
between learning environment and student outcomes.
Literature review and hypotheses

Learning Environment and Student Outcomes

There is a growing attention towards the importance of the learning environment in

supporting effective students’ outcomes in the university level education. Students’
perception about their learning environment has significant impact on their academic
behavior and well-being (Al-Kabbaa, Ahmad, Saeed, Abdalla, & Mustafa, 2012). Different
 Mediating role of Student Engagement.4

studies have stated different components to learning environment. For instance, in school
education, the focus has been teaching behaviors (Inda-Caro et al., 2018). The perceived
teaching behaviors mentioned by the author comprises of safe learning climate, efficient
classroom management, clarity of instruction, activating teaching, teaching–learning
strategies, and differentiation. While, the empirical study of learning environment in the
context of school education is numerous, it is quite scant in the context of management
education especially focusing in post-graduates. The focus has heavily been towards
undergraduate level. This study looks at learning environment from the perspective of post-
graduate students. Learning Environment comprises the student’s broadest experience of an
academic institutions including curriculum, the facilities, and interactions with peers, faculty
and stuff as well as the students’ sense of the learning climate (Shochet, Colbert-Getz, &
Wright, 2015). The study will focus on —community of peers; faculty relationships;
academic climate; meaningful engagement; mentoring; inclusion and safety; and physical
space that was developed to assess the learning environment in medical school (Shochet et
al., 2015).

Student Engagement

Lot of researchers are studying student engagement. Even though, there is increasing
attention given to student engagement, considerable variation exist in how the construct has
been theorized over the period of time Although there is growing interest in student
engagement, there has been considerable variation in how this construct has been
conceptualized over time (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008 ; Fredricks, Blumenfeld,
& Paris, 2004). Fredricks et al., (2004) have defined student engagement as a meta-construct
that involves, behavioral, emotional and cognitive. This study also takes account to same
definition of student engagement.

Behavioral Engagement

According to the definition, it consisted of students’ involvement in academic and

social activities especially positive conduct, involvement in learning, and participation in
other school activities (Fredericks et al. 2004). Specially, positive conduct relates to
following the code of conduct that guides classroom behaviors, involvement in learning and
academic activities includes concentration, attention, persistence, effort, asking questions,
and participation in class discussions. Similarly, other school-related activities include sports
and other co-curricular participation outside school.
 Mediating role of Student Engagement.5

Emotional Engagement

Emotional engagement comprises of students’ attitudes, interests, and values

particularly related to positive or negative interactions with faculty, school staff, other
students, academics, or the institution (Fredericks et al., 2004).

Cognitive Engagement:

Fredricks et al., (2004) defined this dimension further into two components: cognitive
and psychological. The psychological component encompasses motivational goals and self-
regulated learning as it relates to investment, thoughtfulness, and willingness to put in the
effort to comprehend complex ideas and master difficult skills. The psychological component
stresses students’ investment in learning and motivation to learn. The cognitive component
involves self-regulated learning, metacognition, application of learning strategies, and “being
strategic” in thinking and studying (Lester, 2013).

Learning Environment and Student Outcomes

For many students and society, a key aspect of higher education is to prepare students
for future employment (Bash, 2015). Students built their knowledge and skills necessary to
perform in the organization they will sought in future through the learning environment that
is available in their academic institution. Learning environment acts as an important factor for
students to develop their knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviors to be market ready
(Vinales, 2015). Different studies (e.g. McClenney, Marti, & Adkins, 2012; Gunuc & Kuzu,
2014) have identifed academic performances, persistant and attainment as the student
outcomes. However, considering field of management where students’ employability is an
important dimension, it is essential to establish this factor as student outcomes. Self-
Employability.

As per Seymour (1993), developing satisfied student should be a primary goal of

higher education. Further, the quality of teaching faculties, physical facilities and availability
of technology is key determinant of student satisfaction (Wilkins & Balakrishnan, 2013).
Proper learning environment is an important determinant of student satisfaction. Hence, the
study hypothesized that:

H1. Learning environment will be positively related to: (a) Self-Perceived

Employability and (b) Student Satisfaction.
 Mediating role of Student Engagement.6

Learning Environment and Student Engagement

Respectful relationships and interaction that occurs between teachers and students are
shown to improve student engagement. Students today are intensely social and interactive
learners (Taylor & Parsons, 2011). Further the authors stated that creating an engaging
learning environment includes students feel able and confident to challenge teachers’
knowledge. Also, they learn interpersonal skills to engage in discourse respectfully and
constructively, as well as learn the subject content. Classroom practices and perceptions as
seat location, classroom learning strategies, working on in-class problems and expectation for
evaluation affected student engagement (Shernof et al., 2017). Therefore, the study
hypothesize that:

H2. Learning environment will be positively related to (a) Emotional Engagement, (b)
Behavioral Engagement and (c) Cognitive Engagement.

Student Engagement and Student Outcomes

Higher educational institutions faces a challenge to move from knowledge giving to

providing employability skills that include abilities as proper handling of information,
communication, problem solving, social interactions and social development (Fallows &
Steven, 2000). For that reason, increased attention today has been towards areas like
employability expectations prior graduation among students, employability skills that the
curriculum provides and the success with the employment (Rothwella, Jewellb, & Hardieb,
2009). Therefore, student should engage in their learning, different co-curricular activities
and employment development activities organized by the university to enhance their Self-
Perceived Employability.

Student satisfaction has been another important outcome that student engagement
results in. Engaged students see better prospect of their education in the job market. Further,
they make most of their college experience and become satisfied with their learning. In the
context of higher educational institution, students plays an important role in the promotion of
that institution (Uprety & Chhetri, 2014). Hence, the study hypothesized that:

H3: a) Emotional Engagement, (b) Behavioural Engagement and (c) Cognitive Engagement
is positively related self-perceived employability.
H4: a) Emotional Engagement, (b) Behavioral Engagement and (c) Cognitive Engagement is
positively related with student satisfaction.
 Mediating role of Student Engagement.7

Mediating Role of Student Engagement

There are many empirical evidences (Jelas, Azman, Zulnaidi, & Ahmad, 2016; Chapa, 2017)
that suggest that Student Engagement is a meditator. Further, studies have found that student
engagement is a mediator between facilitators as personal, social and institutional and future
academic performance (Salanova et al., 2010). Thus, this study assumes that the presence of
appropriate learning environment will make post-graduate students engage in their learning
and development resulting in self-perceived employability and satisfaction. It is possible for
post-graduate students to be satisfied with their educational experience and further the
positive perception about employability in the job market. Henceforth, the study hypothesized
that:

H4. Emotional Engagement, (b) Behavioral Engagement and (c) Cognitive Engagement mediates the
relationship between Learning Environment and Self-Perceived Employability

H5. Emotional Engagement, (b) Behavioral Engagement and (c) Cognitive Engagement mediates the
relationship between Learning Environment and Student Satisfaction.

Theoretical Framework

For this study the following theoretical framework was formulated after reviewing the
literature. Independent variables are; Learning Environment, Student Engagement and
dependent variables are Self-Perceived Employability and Student Satisfaction. Student
Engagement is also a mediating variable between the independent variables and dependent
variables

Student Engagement Student Outcomes

Emotional Engagement Self-Perceived
Learning Environment Behavioral Engagement Employability
Cognitive Engagement
Student Satisfaction

Fig1. Theoretical Framework

 Mediating role of Student Engagement.8

Method
Participants

The population for this study will be the MBA students of Kathmandu as major
universities and affiliated colleges are located in the capital city.

The study will be quantitative and cross-sectional in design. This study will use
stratified random sampling method. The major universities will be the strata for this study;
Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu University, Purbanchal University, Pokhara University
and Foreign Affiliated Colleges. The educational institutions under these universities and
affiliated colleges that has MBA degree will be randomly sampled within Kathmandu. This
study will only consider full-time MBA degree that is running in business school. Further, the
study will use purposive sampling method to sample MBA students. The eligibility criteria is
that students must be studying full-time in the MBA degree. As the exact population size is
not known, the sample size for this study will be around 377. The sample size is calculated
using the sample size formula when the population is not known. For the chances of non-
response, around 50-100 questionnaires will be distributed in each stratum considering the
size of students in the University. A total of 500 questionnaire will be distributed. The study
will make use of paper questionnaires with proper instructions.

Measures

The study will use John Hopkins Learning Environment Scale which was developed
for medical school (Shochet et al., 2015). The scale is of 28 items and the modification will
be as, “How connected do you feel to other SOM students?” to “How connected do you feel
to other students in your management school?” adopted scale for Learning Environment is
Student Engagement Instrument was adopted from a study that was converted to university
context from a school engagement questionnaire developed by Fredrick’s and her colleagues
(2004). The same instrument of 15 item used in the study will be adopted in this study
(Maroco, Maroco, Campos, & Fredricks, 2016). The instrument has three dimensions:
Emotional, Behavioral and Cognitive.. For self-perceived employability scale, Rothwell et
al., (2009) tested their 16 item scale that was initially validated for undergraduates through
investigating the responses of post-graduate students which will be adopted in this study.
Student satisfaction will be measured by seven item scale adopted from Hatman Schmidt
 Mediating role of Student Engagement.9

(1995) and Silvia & Fernandes (2012). The combined scale was used in a study by (Uprety,
R., & Chhetri, S. B., 2014).

As standard and validated scales are being revised, they will be pre-tested among 10
graduates’ students from a management institution to confirm the reliability of the
questionnaire. The questionnaire will also record demographic variables as gender, education,
and grade point average.

Plan for Analysis

After the collection of data, in the first stage, the data will be coded. Descriptive
statistics (frequency distributions, means, standard deviations, variances, etc.) will be used to
examine the data for their dispersion and central tendency and to analyze the general
demographic information about the respondents. Confirmatory Factor Analysis will be
conducted to confirm the validity of the scale in Nepali context.

Correlation matrix analysis will be performed to examine the direction, strength and
significance of the bivariate relationship among the variables in the study. Correlation
analysis will determine the relationship between predictor variables and student engagement
and student engagement and outcome variables. Further, Structural Equation Modelling
(SEM) to conduct causal mediational analysis on the hypothesized relationship.

Limitations of the Study

The limitation of this study is that there are not numerous empirical evidences in Nepali
context to support the propositions, although this study is much studied in the context of
educational sectors in west. Similarly, this study hypothesized self-perceived employability as
student outcome in this study which is an addition to the theoretical framework proposed. The
geographical complexities may not be favorable in the context of covering all the major cities
for the study as desired.
 Mediating role of Student Engagement.10

References
Abrantes, J. L., Seabra, C., & Lages, L. F. (2007). Pedagogical affect, student interest, and
learning performance. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 960–964.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.10.026
Al-Kabbaa, A. F., Ahmad, H. H., Saeed, A. A., Abdalla, A. M., & Mustafa, A. A. (2012).
Perception of the learning environment by students in a new medical school in Saudi
Arabia: Areas of concern. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 7(2), 69–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2012.11.001
Bash, E. (2015). Graduateness and employability in the higher education sector: A focused
review of the literature. PhD Proposal, 1(January 2012), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Brown, C. W. J. (2014). Service quality as a predictor for academic engagement, academic
performance, and student satisfaction SATISFACTION.
Donald, W. E., Ashleigh, M. J., & Baruch, Y. (2018). Students’ perceptions of education and
employability: Facilitating career transition from higher education into the labor market.
Career Development International, 23(5), 513–540. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-09-2017-
0171
Fan, J. (2016). The role of thinking styles in career decision-making self-efficacy among
university students. Thinking Skills and Creativity. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.03.001
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the
Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Inda-Caro, M., Maulana, R., Fernández-García, C.-M., Peña-Calvo, J.-V., Rodríguez-Menéndez,
M. del C., & Helms-Lorenz, M. (2018). Validating a model of effective teaching behaviour
and student engagement: perspectives from Spanish students. Learning Environments
Research, (0123456789). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-018-9275-z
Jackson, D., & Wilton, N. (2017). Perceived employability among undergraduates and the
importance of career self-management, work experience and individual characteristics.
Higher Education Research and Development.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1229270
Jelas, Z. M., Azman, N., Zulnaidi, H., & Ahmad, N. A. (2016). Learning support and academic
achievement among Malaysian adolescents: the mediating role of student engagement.
Learning Environments Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9202-5
K.C., S. (2014). Building quality in management education through institutional development :
perspective from Nepal. In Building Quality in Management Education for Sustainable
Institutional Development. AMDISA. Retrieved from
https://www.kusom.edu.np/uploaded/pdf/ConferencePaper-1.pdf
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J. L., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to
student success: A review of the literature. National Post-Secondary Education
Cooperative. Washington D.C. https://doi.org/10.1021/la049914f
 Mediating role of Student Engagement.11

Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we are learning about student engagement. Change: The Magazine of
Higher Learning, 35(2), 24–32. Retrieved from http://cpr.indiana.edu/uploads/Kuh
%282003%29 What We%27re Learning About Student Engagement From NSSE.pdf
Rothwell, A., Jewell, S., & Hardie, M. (2009). Self-perceived employability: Investigating the
responses of post-graduate students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(2), 152–161.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.05.002
Shernof, D. J., Ruzek, E. A., Sannella, A. J., Schorr, R. Y., Sanchez-Wall, L., & Bressler, D. M.
(2017). Student engagement as a general factor of classroom experience: Associations with
student practices and educational outcomes in a university gateway course. Frontiers in
Psychology, 8(JUN), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00994
Shochet, R. B., Colbert-Getz, J. M., & Wright, S. M. (2015). The johns hopkins learning
environment scale: Measuring medical students’ perceptions of the processes supporting
professional formation. Academic Medicine, 90(6), 810–818.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000706
Taylor, L., & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education,
14(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
Uprety, R., & Chhetri, S. B. (2014). College Culture and Student Satisfaction. Journal of
Education and Research, 4(1), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.3126/jer.v4i1.10728
Wilkins, S., & Balakrishnan, M. S. (2013). Assessing student satisfaction in transnational higher
education. International Journal of Educational Management.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541311297568
Zepke, N. (2013). Student engagement: A complex business supporting the first year experience
in tertiary education. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 4(2),
1–14. https://doi.org/10.5204/intjfyhe.v4i2.183
 Mediating role of Student Engagement.12

Timeframe

The framework of main activities in undertaking this proposed research work is as follows.

March September –
Jan- June- August Jan– March
S.N Activity – June November Nov- Dec 2018
March 2018 2019
2018 2017/18
2018
Finalization of topic, literature review and preparing
1.
and submitting proposal
Extensive literature review, refinement of research
2.
hypotheses and questionnaire development
Orient research assistants on background of the
3.
research study and data collection
6. Data entry and analyses
Finish draft research report adhering to the standard
6.
writing criteria; Seeking feedback in the draft report
Discuss the date and time with the KUSOM;
presentation of research report to the evaluation
7.
committee and defending it. Submitting the final
report.
 Mediating role of Student Engagement.13

Budget Estimate

S. N. Particulars Quantity Rate Amount

1. Data collection cost 2 persons for Rs. 5000/month Rs.30,000
3 month
6. Printing, photocopy and binding of -- Lump Sum Rs. 5,000
reports
7. Institutional Overhead Cost -- Lump Sum Rs. 10,000

Total Rs. 45,000/