The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2042-3896.htm

Assessing the deliverables of Higher Education,

Skills and Work-
Based Learning
beyond-the-classroom engagement
of management students: an
outcome-oriented model approach
Amandeep Dhaliwal Received 1 June 2023
Revised 31 July 2023
SLM, Manav Rachna International Institute of Research and Studies, 15 February 2024
Faridabad, India 28 April 2024
6 June 2024
Sahil Malik Accepted 12 June 2024

LINC Education, Mumbai, India, and

Deepti Dabas Hazarika
SLM, Manav Rachna International Institute of Research and Studies,
Faridabad, India
Abstract
Purpose – Student engagement is a multifaceted concept that encompasses various dimensions that significantly
influence students and their learning journey. This study aims to explore the extent of engagement among
management students outside the confines of the classroom, specifically focusing on their engagement with the
campus and community and assessing the outcomes resulting from this engagement.
Design/methodology/approach – The literature review provided the basis for developing a student engagement
framework, focusing on campus and community engagement and their outcomes. Established scales measured
these variables through surveys administered to 386 UG and PG management students. In-depth analysis using
PLS-SEM technique revealed the interplay of variables, beyond demographic and descriptive examinations.
Findings – The study found that campus and community engagement fosters a sense of responsibility. Campus
engagement also cultivates long-term loyalty to the institution, while community engagement enhances social
consciousness. Additionally, no significant differences in engagement levels were observed based on gender or
educational level among management students.
Research limitations/implications – The study faces limitations that need addressing for balanced
understanding and future research guidance. Firstly, varying definitions across studies lead to inconsistent
outcomes and comparability challenges. Secondly, accurate measurement is difficult due to reliance on self-
reporting tools, which are prone to biases. Cultural and contextual differences also limit generalizability, and
quantitative data alone may not capture the full picture. In India, identifying specific skills and competencies as
engagement outcomes in outcome-based education is challenging, requiring precise variable identification.
Practical implications – The study would contribute to improving the efficacy of efforts beyond the classroom
engagement activities as it tests, validates, and projects them as outcome-driven by showcasing learning both as
generic competencies in a broad sense and higher-order competencies in particular.
Originality/value – The literature indicates higher education institutes’ activities beyond classroom teaching
enhance students’ campus and community relationships. This study measures these engagements’ outcomes and
suggests new research dimensions in student engagement.
Keywords Student engagement, Campus engagement, Community engagement, Generic outcomes,
Targeted outcomes, Competencies
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Extensive scholarly discourse has delved into student engagement, highlighting its profound
benefits for educational outcomes. This construct encompasses cognitive, socio-emotional,

The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the Dean of Management Colleges of Delhi NCR for
supporting the study by allowing their students to participate and survey. We are incredibly thankful.
Higher Education, Skills and Work-
Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for this article’s research, authorship, and/or Based Learning
publication. © Emerald Publishing Limited
2042-3896
Declaration of conflict: The Author(s) declare(s) that there is/are no conflict(s) of interest. DOI 10.1108/HESWBL-06-2023-0131
HESWBL and behavioral dimensions, forming a holistic framework for academic success and personal
growth. Tertiary education plays a pivotal role in cultivating students’ civic consciousness and
social responsibility, empowering them to become agents of positive change.
A comprehensive model of student engagement, including cognitive, behavioral, campus,
and community dimensions was given by Malik, Hazarika, and Dhaliwal in 2021. This model
underscores higher education’s role in nurturing vital competencies for student development,
emphasizing higher-order capabilities necessary for today’s complex world. Moreover, the
study highlights the importance of students’ interpersonal connections within the academic
community, noting that strong relationships with faculty and staff enhance academic
performance and foster lifelong goals.
Educational institutions must create a learning ecosystem that extends beyond traditional
classrooms. Over their higher education journey, students engage in diverse activities, forging
enduring bonds with their institution and enhancing their sense of belonging. Supportive
campus environments and close student-faculty relationships are crucial for fostering a robust
campus community. Experiential learning opportunities further boost students’ self-esteem,
peer relationships, and institutional loyalty, laying the groundwork for a lifelong connection
with their alma mater.
However, effective student engagement remains a global challenge. Zyngier (2007)
highlights concerns over engagement levels in Australia, emphasizing the need for diverse
activities. This challenge is echoed in Canada (Nguyen, 2011; Summerlee, 2010) and China
(Xu et al., 2023), where engagement in collaborative learning activities needs further research.
In the Asia-Pacific region, Fryer et al. (2021) highlight the need for meaningful engagement
activities. Pool (2022) introduces collaborative citizenry, showcasing how students in Norway
collaborate with the local community to address societal concerns.
In management education, bridging the gap between academic learning and industry
expectations is imperative. Educational programs must equip students with practical skills and
problem-solving acumen relevant to their field, necessitating an outcome-based approach to
student engagement, focusing on the measurable acquisition of both generic and targeted
competencies. Specifically, the following questions need to be addressed through research:
Is higher education in management instrumental in developing higher-order skills in
students, especially concerning students’ engagement with their campus and the community?
Are the outcomes of higher education in management evolving beyond the deliverables
in class?

2. Literature review
2.1 Campus engagement
Campus engagement is a prominent focus in higher education, with institutions increasingly
promoting out-of-class social interactions through co-curricular activities like student clubs,
sports, competitions, workshops, and team-based projects. These activities significantly
enhance students’ holistic educational experiences (Malik et al., 2021). Voluntary
participation in such interactions is a key indicator of campus engagement (Appleton et al.,
2006; Krause and Armitage, 2014; Bowden et al., 2019; Christenson et al., 2012; Gunuc and
Kuzu, 2015; Choi and Rhee, 2014).
When students feel socially accepted, they are more comfortable and enthusiastic about
attending classes and participating in campus activities (Goodenow, 1993; Glass et al., 2015).
Conversely, low engagement is often reflected in non-participation in extracurricular activities
(Shochet et al., 2008). Students lacking social integration frequently experience loneliness and
isolation, leading to higher dropout rates (McIntyre et al., 2018; Robinson et al., 2018). Social
acceptance and active participation on campus enhance feelings of positivity and a desire to
attend classes (Alan et al., 2018).
Engaged students are more willing to invest extra time, effort, and sometimes financial
resources for their institution. Deci et al. (1991) gave self-determination theory that suggests that
individuals are more likely to engage in unpleasant or uninteresting tasks if they feel valued and Higher Education,
connected. Therefore, students who feel a sense of belonging to their institution are more inclined Skills and Work-
to undertake additional academic and non-academic activities (Aritonang and Lerbin, 2014). Based Learning
A campus environment that encourages active participation in co-curricular and
co-scholastic activities fosters the development of generic student competencies (Choi and
Rhee, 2014). Engaged students often participate voluntarily in extracurricular activities and
general campus life (Bowden et al., 2019; Eggens et al., 2008; Johnson et al., 2001). These
interactions with team members, faculty, and administrative staff enhance their relationships
and understanding of diverse backgrounds (Kezar and Kinzie, 2006; Massoni, 2011; Paswan
and Ganesh, 2009; Kahu, 2013; Krause and Armitage, 2014).
Students’ sense of acceptance, inclusion, and respect from peers, faculty, and staff
contributes to their sense of belonging and responsibility within the educational environment
(Glass et al., 2015). This social engagement fosters a positive connection among students
(Goodenow, 1993; Freeman et al., 2007; Shochet et al., 2008; Glass et al., 2015). When
students feel accepted by their educational community, they experience higher levels of social
acceptance and belonging, leading to happiness and calmness (Appleton et al., 2006; Freeman
et al., 2007; Krause and Armitage, 2014; Wentzel and Ramani, 2016).
Institutions aiming to improve student engagement should consider both curricular and co-
curricular strategies (Trogden et al., 2023). High campus engagement not only fosters a
positive out-of-class environment but also builds long-term emotional connections and loyalty
towards the institution (Alan et al., 2018; Coates, 2007; Aritonang and Lerbin, 2014; Cole and
Arriola, 2007; Eggens et al., 2008; Freeman et al., 2007). This engagement translates into a
strong sense of pride, trust, and loyalty among students (Aritonang and Lerbin, 2014; Sung and
Yang, 2009). Engaged students often serve as unofficial brand ambassadors, promoting their
institutions to prospective students (Bowden et al., 2019; Kahu, 2013; Krause and Coates,
2008; Jillapalli and Jillapalli, 2014; Schlesinger et al., 2017).
Participation in co-curricular activities not only enhances academic achievement but also helps
students manage their non-academic responsibilities (Kezar and Kinzie, 2006; Massoni, 2011).
With the integration of technology in education, social networking sites have become vital in
enhancing student engagement, sociability, and course satisfaction (Yılmaz and Yılmaz, 2023).
In conclusion, campus engagement fosters a sense of responsibility towards peers and
society, while also building a deep loyalty to the institution.

2.2 Community engagement

Student engagement plays a critical role in enhancing learning outcomes in higher education
€ and Boyacı, 2021). Beyond imparting knowledge, educational systems play a vital role in
(Oz
cultivating civic responsibility in students, emphasizing community service (Millican and
Bourner, 2011). Civic engagement encompasses four dimensions: community engagement,
civic activism, media attentiveness, and financial contributions (Hatcher, 2011). Community
engagement specifically involves “promoting the quality of life in a community, through both
political and non-political processes” (Ehrlich, 2000, p. 36). Many higher education
institutions have formalized student community engagement programs to facilitate
experiential learning (Buys and Bursnall, 2007).
According to the Association of American Colleges and National Leadership Council
(2007), fostering sensitivity towards individual and collective duty is a primary learning
outcome alongside acquiring scientific knowledge and practical skills. Community
engagement promotes personal learning, uplifts vulnerable communities, enhances skills,
and fosters a better value system (Musil, 2009). Such programs help students build social
identity, enhance social consciousness, and recognize their strengths and values (Millican and
Bourner, 2011). Additionally, these experiences improve students’ interpersonal, leadership,
teamwork, and communication skills, enhancing their employability and academic
performance (Millican and Bourner, 2011).
HESWBL Community engagement programs honor the service aspect of the educational mission of
teaching, research, and service (Cook and Nation, 2016). Engaging in social causes helps
students develop a sense of responsibility towards societal issues (Cook and Nation, 2016).
Malik et al. (2021) categorize engagement outcomes into generic and targeted, emphasizing
higher-order competencies like social consciousness. Participating in community
development projects, credit courses like waste management, and social welfare activities
enhances students’ understanding of society and fosters social responsibility (Malik
et al., 2021).
Community experiences contribute to personal development, educational goals, and
students’ conceptions of social responsibility and citizenship (Hannibal and Robertson, 2023).
Educational institutions contribute to nation-building by offering enriching scholarships,
enhancing pedagogies, preparing responsible citizens, and addressing critical societal issues
(Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2016). Community engagement
produces civic-minded, socially responsible graduates who collaborate democratically to
improve society (Hatcher, 2011; Bringle and Steinberg, 2010).
Knight-McKenna et al. (2018) encourage higher education students to participate in
community learning projects to understand mutual challenges better. The overall goals of
student-community engagement include strengthening students’ sensitivity to societal affairs,
enriching campus-centered study, and supporting the tripartite mission of teaching, research,
and service (Cook and Nation, 2016). A 2022 University Grants Commission (UGC) study in
India highlights that community engagement in higher education promotes interactions
between institutions and local communities to solve real-life problems, fostering social
responsibility in teaching and research activities (Bansal et al., 2022). Thus, higher education
institutions aim to create socially responsible citizens, making community engagement
essential for fostering social consciousness and responsibility in students.

2.3 Relationship between gender with student engagement

The impact of gender and education on student engagement is a well-researched topic. Studies
have explored how gender differences influence aspects of engagement, such as academic
performance, participation, motivation, and educational experiences.
Research shows that girls tend to outperform boys in subjects like language arts and social
sciences, while boys excel in outdoor activities (Hannover and Kessels, 2004; Else-Quest
et al., 2010). Mortenson (1999, 2006) argues that the growing disparity in degrees awarded to
men and women indicates a decline in male engagement and educational attainment. Boys are
more likely to dominate classroom discussions, while girls often contribute more through
written assignments or collaborative activities (Sadker and Sadker, 1994; Leder et al., 2006).
Trogden et al. (2023) found that male transfer students participate in capstone projects at 17%
higher rates than females, with more men starting college but being less inclined to read or
actively engage in campus life (McCarthy and Kuh, 2006).
Sobieraj and Kr€amer (2019) found that male STEM students reported higher practical
competence and engagement scores than females. Girls may be motivated by the desire to meet
academic expectations, while boys are driven by competition (Eccles and Wigfield, 2002;
Wigfield and Eccles, 2000). Women are more likely to demonstrate academic behaviors such
as study habits and attendance (Woodfield et al., 2016) and may have different relationships
with peers and faculty (Sax, 2008). These relationships are further complicated by enrollment
in gender-dominated fields (Mastekaasa and Smeby, 2008).

3. Research objective and hypotheses

Based on the in-depth literature review, the following research questions, and hypothesis are
proposed for studying the outcomes. The conceptual model for the study is presented in
Figure 1.
 Higher Education,
Skills and Work-
Based Learning

Figure 1. The conceptual framework

3.1 Research objective(s)

(1) To examine the relationship between generic and targeted outcomes of the student’s
engagement with their campus and community.
(2) To measure the impact of Gender and Education level on student engagement towards
campus and community.

3.2 Research hypotheses

H1. Male and female students differ significantly in their level of engagement exhibited towards
campus and community activities and the associated outcomes based on their gender.
H2. Students enrolled at UG and PG levels exhibit significantly different levels of
engagement toward campus and community activities and the associated outcomes.
H3. Campus engagement positively contributes to developing a sense of loyalty towards
the institution amongst the students.
H4. Campus engagement positively contributes to developing a sense of responsibility
amongst the students.
H5. Community engagement positively contributes to developing a sense of social
consciousness among the students.
H6. Community engagement positively contributes to developing a sense of
responsibility among the students.

4. Methodology
This paper investigates the outcomes of student engagement in tertiary education through a
blend of literature review and empirical analysis, focusing on campus and community
engagement dimensions and their respective generic and targeted outcomes. The study
employed survey research methodology, utilizing validated scales adapted from existing
literature to measure engagement levels and associated outcomes. The instrument, comprising
19 items measured on Likert scale and additional demographic questions, was validated for
reliability with a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.857. The three measures related to campus and
HESWBL community engagement were adapted from literature (Schlesinger et al., 2017; Cook and
Nation, 2016; Gunuc and Kuzu, 2015; Hatcher, 2011), while the three items measuring sense
of loyalty were adapted from Helgesen and Nesset (2007). The four items measuring social
consciousness were adapted from Knefelkamp (2008) and Musil (2009), and lastly, six items
measuring sense of responsibility, including statements on the feeling of belongingness were
adapted from Freeman et al. (2007) and Glass et al. (2015),
A total of 690 management students from various government and private institutions in
Delhi-NCR participated, with data collected from 425 respondents over two months in 2022.
After data cleaning, 386 valid responses were analyzed. Descriptive and inferential statistics,
including t tests and PLS-SEM regression, explored the relationship between engagement
measures and outcomes. For data collection, all necessary permissions were obtained prior to
data collection, ensuring compliance with relevant ethical standards and regulations.

5. Findings
The study assessed students’ campus and community engagement and its impact on their sense
of responsibility, loyalty, and social consciousness, aiming to gauge their overall competencies.
The study’s findings have been discussed in separate sections. Section I consists of descriptive
and comparative analysis, and Section II examines the relationship between engagement and
outcomes, which have been measured and presented in models and their interpretation.

5.1 Section I
5.1.1 Demographic profile of the sample. The demographic profiling of the data is presented in
the following Table 1.
Of the 386 respondents, 185 were found to be females, while 201 were male respondents. In
the female category, 102 were found to be postgraduate students, while 83 were graduate
students. In contrast, in the case of male respondents, 96 were postgraduate students, while 105
were graduate students pursuing business education.

5.2 Comparative analysis

T-tests were performed to understand the impact of gender and education level on levels of
engagement with campus and community activities and the associated outcomes.
5.2.1 Gender. The study conducted a comparative analysis of gender data using an
independent sample T-test. Descriptive values revealed that male (M 5 105) and female (M 5 84)
students exhibited similar campus and community engagement levels, with mean and SD values
close in range. T-test results, supported by Levene’s test, indicated no significant gender-based
differences in engagement or outcome variables, such as loyalty, civic knowledge, and sense of
responsibility. The interpretation was based on the p-value, which resulted in rejecting the
alternative hypothesis H1. The findings suggest that both genders perceive and engage with
campus and community activities similarly. These results underscore the importance of gender-
neutral strategies in promoting student engagement and achieving desired outcomes. Detailed
group-wise descriptive statistics are provided in Table 2 for reference.

Table 1. Demographic profiling of sample

Gender Nos Post graduate Graduate

Female 185 102 83

Male 201 96 105
Total 386 198 188
Source(s): By authors
Table 2. Comparative analysis based on gender and education

Male Female Gender-based T-test Education-based - T-test

Mean SD Mean SD F Sig t Df Sig F Sig T Df Sig

Campus Eng 3.85 0.72 3.89 0.67 0.786 0.377
0.385 187 0.701 2.248 0.135
1.513 187 0.132
Comm Eng 3.83 72 3.84 72 0.128 0.721
0.105 187 0.917 0.200 0.655
1.000 187 0.319
Sense of loyalty 3.92 0.83 3.89 0.69 0.525 0.470 0.315 187 0.753 3.007 0.085
1.470 187 0.143
Social consciousness 3.95 0.61 3.94 0.65 0.179 0.672 0.071 187 0.944 0.179 0.672 0.071 187 0.944
Sense of responsibility 4.09 0.57 4.02 0.55 0.895 0.345 0.732 187 0.465 3.906 0.050
0.577 187 0.564
Source(s): By authors
Based Learning
Skills and Work-
Higher Education,
HESWBL 5.2.2 Level of education. Before conducting a comparative analysis, descriptive values (Mean
and SD) for the demographic variable level of education (UG n 5 56; PG n 5 133) were
examined. The mean and SD values for UG and PG students showed slight variations in
campus and community engagement levels, with PG students generally exhibiting slightly
higher engagement. Similarly, outcomes such as loyalty and civic knowledge showed
marginally higher values for PG students compared to UG students. An independent sample T-
test was conducted to compare UG and PG students’ engagement levels and outcomes. The
test, preceded by Levene’s test to ensure sample homogeneity, revealed no significant
difference between undergraduate and postgraduate students in terms of their engagement
with campus and community activities. Likewise, there were no significant disparities in
generic and targeted outcomes between the two groups. These findings suggest that regardless
of their educational level, students perceive and engage with campus and community
initiatives similarly, thereby rejecting the alternative hypothesis. Detailed group-wise
descriptive statistics are provided in Table 3 for reference.

Table 3. Item-wise analysis

Variable Item wise % Mean SD

Campus Eng I feel happy going to campus and spending time there 78 4.08 0.07
I like to participate in co-curricular activities/study groups/ 78 3.97 0.07
community groups/student societies, and associations that are of
interest
I willingly put in additional time and effort and sometimes even 56 3.55 0.06
financial costs for my institution
Comm Eng My institution encourages students to work for society and the 75 3.82 0.06
community
I like to participate in/organize events on social causes in the 72 3.85 0.06
college
There are opportunities available for me to participate in social 72 3.84 0.06
welfare activities
Sense of loyalty I look forward to helping my institution grow further 82 3.97 0.05
I feel a long-term bonding, relationship, and attachment toward my 82 3.96 0.06
campus and its members
I shall advocate and act as a brand ambassador for my institute in 75 3.86 0.06
the future
Social My education has contributed to understanding people of other 78 3.97 0.05
consciousness racial and ethnic backgrounds
The curriculum has helped to gain knowledge and awareness 82 3.98 0.05
towards society and community needs
My educational institute contributes to developing a personal code 75 3.84 0.05
of values and ethics
My education helps in developing my awareness about 83 3.98 0.05
contributing to society
Sense of My institute create a sense of responsibility towards society in me 83 4.03 0.05
responsibility I believe in working for the community to bring positive change 86 4.09 0.04
There are opportunities available at my institution to participate in 80 3.94 0.05
social welfare activities
I feel pride and a sense of belonging towards campus 78 3.95 0.05
I feel a sense of inclusivity, acceptance, and bonding towards other 79 3.92 0.06
students
My out-of-class activities have enhanced the quality of my 75 3.85 0.06
relationships with other students, faculty members, and other
service staff of the institution
Source(s): By authors
5.3 descriptive analysis – variables Higher Education,
The study conducted a comprehensive descriptive analysis of variables derived from the Skills and Work-
literature review, aligning with the conceptual framework. Mean values indicated that students Based Learning
perceive substantial engagement by their institutes in both campus (mean 3.87, S.D 0.70) and
community (mean 3.84, S.D 0.72) activities. Moreover, outcomes expected from these
engagements, categorized into generic and targeted competencies, were thoroughly examined.
Students affirmed that participation in extracurricular activities enriched their capabilities,
fostering a strong sense of belonging (mean 3.91, S.D 0.77) and enhancing civic knowledge
(mean 3.94, S.D 0.63), with both engagements instilling a higher sense of responsibility (mean
4.06, S.D 0.56).
Frequency data analysis revealed high campus engagement among students, with a
significant portion participating in co-curricular activities. However, only around half
expressed willingness to invest additional effort, money, and time for the institution. Campus
engagement outcomes included enhanced pride and rapport with faculty and staff, fostering
long-term bonds with the institution and peers. Students also expressed interest in serving as
brand ambassadors.
Regarding community engagement, students reported satisfaction with opportunities to
contribute to society, indicating willingness to organize social events. They acknowledged
opportunities provided by the institute and reported a better understanding of diverse cultural
backgrounds and societal challenges. Community engagement also fostered personal ethical
development, instilling a higher sense of responsibility toward society and promoting
collective commitment to positive societal change.

5.4 Section II
The next phase of the study examined the relationship between the engagements and
outcomes. For this, the variance-based Partial Least Square (PLS) technique using the
SmartPLS 3.2.6 software (Ringle et al., 2015) was adopted as the study was exploratory. The
focus was on measuring the effects of campus and community engagement on the students’
generic outcome (sense of responsibility) as well as targeted outcomes (sense of loyalty to the
institution and Social consciousness for society). In the model, as shown in Figure 2, the
exogenous variables were campus and community engagement. In contrast, the endogenous

Figure 2. PLS model

HESWBL variables were the generic outcomes (sense of responsibility) and targeted outcomes (sense of
loyalty to the institution and Social consciousness for society).
PLS-model estimation was performed using SmartPLS to test the goodness of fit test for
both the outer (measurement model) and inner model (structural model) as recommended by
Hair et al. (2021). Since the item scales were similar and comparable, standardization of the
data was not required. Hence, the model estimation was performed using the original data
(Chatelin et al., 2002). The goodness-of-fit test of the measurement model was measured
based on convergent validity, discriminant validity, and reliability. These values are presented
in the Table 4.
The recommended threshold values in research include a factor loading above 0.6 (Hair
et al., 2016), composite reliability above 0.7 (Henseler et al., 2015), Cronbach’s alpha above
0.6 (Hair et al., 2016), and an AVE greater than 0.5 (Chin, 2010). The measurement model
results in Table 4 indicate that all factor loadings exceed 0.6, composite reliabilities are higher
than 0.7, Cronbach’s alpha values are around 0.6, and the AVE of all latent variables is more
than 0.5, meeting these thresholds. Discriminant validity was assessed using the Fornell-
Larcker criterion, comparing the square root of each endogenous construct’s AVE with its bi-
variate correlations with other endogenous constructs (Hulland, 1999; Gregoire and Fisher,
2006). The results confirmed that the square root of AVE is greater than the variance shared
between campus and community engagement, indicating discriminant validity. Thus, all
criteria for validity and reliability are fulfilled, making the outer model fit.
The next step was evaluating the structural model or the inner model, as presented in
Table 6. R-squared values of 0.25, 0.5, and 0.7 describe weak, moderate, and strong
coefficients of determination, respectively (Hair et al., 2014). The R-squared value for the
generic outcome (sense of responsibility) was 0.57, indicating that campus and community
engagement together explain over half of this outcome. The R-squared values for targeted
outcomes, such as loyalty (0.42) and social consciousness (0.48), also show a significant
influence of campus and community engagement.
To test the hypotheses and evaluate the significance of path coefficients, t-values were
calculated using bootstrapping with 5,000 samples for stability (Chin, 1998), compared to the

Table 4. The results of the measurement model

Variable Constructs Factor loading Cronbach’s alpha AVE Composite reliability

Campus CA1 0.78 0.69 0.61 0.83

CA2 0.77
CA3 0.80
Community CO1 0.89 0.80 0.71 0.88
CO2 0.74
CO3 0.89
Sense of loyalty OCA1 0.88 0.85 0.77 0.91
OCA2 0.90
OCA3 0.84
Social consciousness OCO1 0.85 0.68 0.62 0.82
OCO2 0.62
OCO3 0.86
Sense of responsibility CAA1 0.75 0.88 0.59 0.91
CAA2 0.78
CAA3 0.69
CAA4 0.77
COO1 0.84
COO2 0.83
COO3 0.69
Source(s): By authors
default 100 samples in SmartPLS. An alternative hypothesis (Ha) is accepted if tcount ≥1.96 Higher Education,
(Hair et al., 2014, p. 186). The summary of final coefficients and t-statistic values from the Skills and Work-
direct effect test, as estimated by SmartPLS, are presented in Table 5. Based Learning
The results, as given in Table 5, indicate that campus engagement has a direct, positive, and
significant effect on Targeted outcome (Loyalty) and Generic outcome (sense of
responsibility) where (β) is 0.64 and 0.35, respectively. The t value is greater than 1.96 for
both; hence, hypotheses H3 and H4 are accepted. Similarly, the effect of Community
engagement on Generic outcomes and Targeted community outcomes of students was found to
be significant and positive with values of (β) as 0.47 and 0.70, respectively, and the value of T
was above 1.96. Therefore, both the hypotheses H5 and H6 were accepted. It further shows
that community engagement has a stronger effect on Generic engagement. In the case of
targeted engagement, community engagement has a stronger effect.
Further, an assessment of Stone-Geisser’s predictive relevance Q2 was carried out to test
the model’s predictive relevance by the blindfolding procedure. As given in Table 6, the results
reveal that the proposed model has good predictive relevance for all endogenous variables.
Chin (1998) suggests that a model demonstrates good predictive relevance when its Q2 value
exceeds zero.
The final step in structural model evaluation is to assess the effect size of an individual
exogenous construct on the endogenous construct if it is deleted from the model by examining
the f2 and q2 effect sizes. Cohen (2013) stated that f2 values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 can be
interpreted as small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively. It can be said that, in general,
the exogenous variables have medium to large f2 and q2 effect sizes on the endogenous
variables.
Thus, overall, it can be concluded that campus engagement and community engagement
lead to the development of significant generic outcomes, which are developing a sense of
responsibility amongst students, while the targeted or specific outcomes are developing a
sense of loyalty towards the institution and the development of social consciousness amongst
the students.

Table 5. Hypothesis testing

Path
Path Hypothesis coefficient (β) T statistics p-values Significant

Campus → Loyalty H3 (þ) 0.64 7.89 0.00 Yes

Campus → Sense of responsibility H4 (þ) 0.35 2.94 0.00 Yes
Community → Social consciousness H5 (þ) 0.70 10.15 0.00 Yes
Community → Sense of responsibility H6 (þ) 0.47 4.24 0.00 Yes
Source(s): By authors

Table 6. Model evaluation

Variable f2 q2 R2 Q2

Campus 0.26 0.10

Community 0.20 0.05
Loyalty 0.42 0.30
Social consciousness 0.48 0.29
Sense of responsibility 0.57 0.32
Source(s): By authors
HESWBL 6. Discussion
As students enroll in higher education programs, they are afforded a considerable scope for
enhancing their competencies. This period of academic pursuit provides an opportune juncture
for cultivating essential life skills. While classroom activities undoubtedly hold significance,
equal importance is attributed to students’ engagement with the wider community and the
campus environment of the respective higher education institutions.
This study conclusively affirms that campus and community engagement(s) significantly
contribute to the development of overarching outcomes, particularly fostering a sense of
responsibility among students, as posited in prior research by Millican and Bourner (2011) and
Malik et al. (2021). Furthermore, targeted outcomes, such as the cultivation of institutional
loyalty, as corroborated by Bowden et al. (2019), Cervera and Perez-Caba~ nero (2017), and
Gunuc and Kuzu (2015), alongside the promotion of social consciousness, as noted by Cook
and Nation (2016), further underscore the positive impact of student engagement initiatives.
Moreover, the study’s results also show that gender or educational attainment does not
yield significant disparities in students’ sense of responsibility, social consciousness, or
institutional loyalty. Thus, fostering deep student engagement, particularly through
extracurricular pursuits, remains paramount.
Further, the study unequivocally demonstrates students’ recognition of the meaningful
engagement facilitated by their institutions through campus and community-related activities.
The results depict that participation in extracurricular endeavors augments students’ skills and
proficiencies beyond the traditional confines of classroom learning. While nurturing subject-
specific competencies and fostering academic interactions remain essential, students
recognize that cultivating values and social awareness towards society and the educational
institution is imperative.
Consequently, the implementation of additional extracurricular initiatives emerges as a
necessity. Notably, through the study, contemporary student cohorts, predominantly
comprising millennials, exhibit diverse interests and a multifaceted approach to
engagement. These pursuits extend beyond academic endeavors, indicative of a nuanced
understanding of holistic involvement across various domains. By providing opportunities for
engagement beyond conventional learning realms, institutions can foster the development of
well-rounded individuals equipped with the requisite skills and perspectives for active
citizenship and professional success.

7. Conclusion
This study explores the relationship between generic and targeted outcomes of student
engagement with campus and community activities in higher education. Specifically, it
identifies the activities that build generic and higher-order competencies among students.
The validation from undergraduate and postgraduate students indicates that higher
education institutions increasingly offer opportunities beyond the classroom. It is noteworthy
that students show acceptance and willingness to participate in activities that complement their
classroom engagement. While student participation varies, institutions must plan activities to
provide opportunities for all. Introducing life skills programs contributing to final assessments
or grades could be beneficial. For instance, allocating four to six hours weekly for students to
engage in hobby clubs, community projects, and campus activities such as teaching
assistantships or administrative support could foster skill development.
Additionally, organizing internships with non-government organizations or government
schemes, lasting four to eight weeks, offers students exposure to real-world challenges,
enhancing their understanding of community problems. Weekly two-hour slots for hobby
clubs to stage performances, conduct competitions, or host expert interactions could further
enrich student engagement.
Higher educational institutions can enhance campus engagement by appointing campus
partners—senior students, professionals, or young faculty members—and class connectors to
motivate participation and foster a sense of belonging. Leveraging social media apps, Higher Education,
interactive SMS services, self-service apps, virtual campus tours, and mobile-friendly learning Skills and Work-
kiosks can also increase involvement outside the classroom. Based Learning
To enhance community engagement, institutions can organize CSR activities like blood
donation camps, plantation drives, cleanliness drives, and fundraising events. Introducing
compulsory credit courses in environmental studies, waste management, ethics, welfare
economics, and financial inclusion can highlight societal concerns in management education.
Recognizing and awarding students involved in social development initiatives can further
encourage participation.
Educational institutions are seen as catalysts for positive societal change, expected to go
beyond imparting basic knowledge to developing students’ generic competencies through
campus and community engagement. Emphasizing beyond-the-classroom engagement is
crucial for achieving the desired outcomes of a responsive citizenry.

8. Limitations of the study and future research directions

Student engagement encompasses cognitive, behavioral, campus, and community
involvement, supported by specific pedagogies and activities. However, it faces limitations
that need addressing for balanced understanding and future research guidance. Firstly, varying
definitions across studies lead to inconsistent outcomes and comparability challenges.
Secondly, accurate measurement is difficult due to reliance on self-reporting tools, which are
prone to biases. Cultural and contextual differences also limit generalizability, and quantitative
data alone may not capture the full picture. In India, identifying specific skills and
competencies as engagement outcomes in outcome-based education is challenging, requiring
precise variable identification.
Future research should explore student engagement levels through longitudinal studies to
track changes and identify influencing factors. Additionally, assessing program outcomes and
the efficacy of higher education courses can reveal effective teaching methods and course
structures. Cross-cultural comparisons, particularly between Asian and Western students, can
provide insights into cultural differences and inform more inclusive educational strategies.
Addressing these areas can enhance understanding and optimization of student engagement.

References
Alan, A.K., Kabadayi, E.T. and Cavdar, N. (2018), “Beyond obvious behavior patterns in universities:
student engagement with the university”, Pressacademia, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 222-230, doi: 10.
17261/pressacademia.2018.946.
Appleton, J.J., Christenson, S.L., Kim, D. and Reschly, A.L. (2006), “Measuring cognitive and
psychological engagement: validation of the student engagement instrument”, Journal of School
Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 427-445, doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002.
Aritonang, R. and Lerbin, R. (2014), “Student loyalty modeling”, Market-Trziste, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 77-91.
Association of American Colleges and National Leadership Council (AACNLC) (2007), College
Learning for the New Global Century: A Report from the National Leadership Council for
Liberal Education and America’s Promise, Assn of Amer Colleges, Washington.
Bansal, I., Panwar, M., Kaushik, A. and Bhatt, S. (2022), “Human resource development through
community engagement”, UGC Pathshala.
Bowden, J.L.H., Tickle, L. and Naumann, K. (2019), “The four pillars of tertiary student engagement
and success: a holistic measurement approach”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 46 No. 6,
pp. 1-18, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1672647.
Bringle, R.G. and Steinberg, K. (2010), “Educating for informed community involvement”,
American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 46 Nos 3/4, pp. 428-441.
HESWBL Buys, N. and Bursnall, S. (2007), “Establishing university-community partnerships: processes and
benefits”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 73-86, doi:
10.1080/13600800601175797.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2016), “How a networked improvement
community improved success rates for struggling college math students”, available at: www.
carnegiefoundation.org/resources/publications/how-a-networked-improvement-community-
improved-success-rates-for-struggling-college-math-students/ (accessed 19 October 2019).
Cervera, A. and Perez-Caba~ nero, C. (2017), “Sticking with your university: the importance of
satisfaction, trust, image, and shared values”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 42 No. 12, pp.
2178-2194.
Chatelin, Y.M., Vinzi, V.E. and Tenenhaus, M. (2002), “State-of-art on PLS modeling through the
available software”, HEC Business School, Jouy-en-Josas.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling”, Modern
Methods for Business Research, Vol. 295 No. 2, pp. 295-336.
Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS analyses”, in Handbook of Partial Least Squares,
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 655-690.
Choi, B.K. and Rhee, B.S. (2014), “The influences of student engagement, institutional mission, and
cooperative learning climate on the generic competency development of Korean undergraduate
students”, Higher Education, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.1007/s10734-013-9637-5.
Christenson, S.L., Reschly, A.L. and Wylie, C. (Eds) (2012), Handbook of Research on Student
Engagement, Springer Science and Business Media, New York, NY.
Coates, H. (2007), “A model of online and general campus-based student engagement”, Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 121-141, doi: 10.1080/
02602930600801878.
Cohen, J. (2013), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Routledge, New York.
Cole, E.R. and Arriola, K.R. (2007), “Black students on white campuses: toward a twodimensional
model of black acculturation”, Journal of Black Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 379-403, doi: 10.
1177/0095798407307046.
Cook, J.R. and Nation, M. (2016), “Community engagement: universities’ roles in building
communities and strengthening democracy”, Community Development, Vol. 47 No. 5,
pp. 718-731, doi: 10.1080/15575330.2016.1226912.
Deci, E.L., Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G. and Ryan, R.M. (1991), “Motivation and education: the self-
determination perspective”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 325-346, doi: 10.1080/
00461520.1991.9653137.
Eccles, J.S. and Wigfield, A. (2002), “Motivational beliefs, values, and goals”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 109-132.
Eggens, L., Van der Werf, M.P.C. and Bosker, R.J. (2008), “The influence of personal networks and
social support on study attainment of students in university education”, Higher Education,
Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 553-573, doi: 10.1007/s10734-007-9074-4.
Ehrlich, T. (Ed.) (2000), Civic Responsibility and Higher Education, Greenwood Publishing Group.
Else-Quest, N.M., Hyde, J.S. and Linn, M.C. (2010), “Cross-national patterns of gender differences in
mathematics: a meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136 No. 1, p. 103.
Freeman, T.M., Anderman, L.H. and Jensen, J.M. (2007), “Sense of belonging in college freshmen at
the classroom and campus levels”, The Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 75 No. 3,
pp. 203-220, doi: 10.3200/jexe.75.3.203-220.
Fryer, L.K., Zeng, L.M. and Zhao, Y. (2021), “Assessing university and programme experiences:
towards an integrated Asia pacific approach”, Frontiers in Education, Vol. 6, 748590, available
at: https://doi:10.3389/feduc.2021.748590 (accessed 24 July 2023).
Glass, C.R., Kociolek, E., Wongtrirat, R., Lynch, R.J. and Cong, S. (2015), “Uneven experiences: the
impact of student-faculty interactions on international students’ sense of belonging”, Journal of
International Students, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 353-367, doi: 10.32674/jis.v5i4.400.
Goodenow, C. (1993), “Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: relationships to Higher Education,
motivation and achievement”, The Journal of Early Adolescence, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 21-43, doi: Skills and Work-
10.1177/0272431693013001002. Based Learning
Gregoire, Y. and Fisher, R.J. (2006), “The effects of relationship quality on customer retaliation”,
Marketing Letters, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 31-46, doi: 10.1007/s11002-006-3796-4.
Gunuc, S. and Kuzu, A. (2015), “Student engagement scale: development, reliability and validity”,
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 587-610, doi: 10.1080/
02602938.2014.938019.
Hair, J.F., Jr., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2016), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications, New York.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N.P. and Ray, S. (2021), “Mediation
analysis”, in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R, Springer,
Cham, pp. 139-153.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2014), “Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM) an emerging tool in business research”, European Business
Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 106-121, doi: 10.1108/ebr-10-2013-0128.
Hannibal, L.C. and Robertson, A.M.G. (2023), “‘When I’m at school, I’m more than just a student. . .
the city is my city’: assessing college student outcomes in a community engagement immersion
program”, Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 41-58.
Hannover, B. and Kessels, U. (2004), “Self-to-prototype matching as a strategy for making academic
choices. Why high school students do not like math and science”, Learning and Instruction,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 51-67.
Hatcher, J.A. (2011), “Assessing civic knowledge and engagement”, New Directions for Institutional
Research, Vol. 2011 No. 149, pp. 81-92, doi: 10.1002/ir.382.
Helgesen, Ø. and Nesset, E. (2007), “What accounts for students’ loyalty? Some field study evidence”,
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 126-143, doi: 10.1108/
09513540710729926.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity
in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135, doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
Hulland, J. (1999), “Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of
four recent studies”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 195-204, doi: 10.1002/
(sici)1097-0266(199902)20:2<195::aid-smj13>3.3.co;2-z.
Jillapalli, R.K. and Jillapalli, R. (2014), “Do professors have customer-based Brand equity?”, Journal of
Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 22-40, doi: 10.1080/08841241.2014.909556.
Johnson, M.K., Crosnoe, R. and Elder, G.H. Jr (2001), “Students’ attachment and academic
engagement: the role of race and ethnicity”, Sociology of Education, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 318-340,
doi: 10.2307/2673138.
Kahu, E.R. (2013), “Framing student engagement in higher education”, Studies in Higher Education,
Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 758-773, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.598505.
Kezar, A.J. and Kinzie, J. (2006), “Examining the ways institutions create student engagement: the role
of mission”, Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 149-172, doi: 10.1353/
csd.2006.0018.
Knefelkamp, L.L. (2008), “College students’ technology arc: a model for understanding progress”,
Theory into Practice, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 186-196.
Knight-McKenna, M., Felten, P. and Darby, A. (2018), “Student engagement with community”, New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, Vol. 2018 No. 154, pp. 65-74, doi: 10.1002/tl.20292.
Krause, K.L. and Armitage, L. (2014), “Australian student engagement, belonging, retention and
success: a synthesis of the literature”, The Higher Education Academy, available at: www.
heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/resources/Australian_student_engagement_litsyn_2.pdf (accessed
5 January 2019).
HESWBL Krause, K.L. and Coates, H. (2008), “Students’ engagement in first-year university”, Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 493-505, doi: 10.1080/
02602930701698892.
Leder, G., Hary, C. and Forgasz, H.J. (2006), “Affect and mathematics education: PME perspectives”,
Handbook of Research on the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Brill, pp. 403-427.
Malik, S., Hazarika, D.D. and Dhaliwal, A. (2021), “Deliverables of student engagement: developing
an outcome-oriented model”, Journal of International Education in Business, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 221-249, doi: 10.1108/jieb-02-2020-0012.
Massoni, E. (2011), “Positive effects of extracurricular activities on students”, Essai, Vol. 9 No. 1,
p. 27.
Mastekaasa, A. and Smeby, J.C. (2008), “Educational choice and persistence in male-and female-
dominated fields”, Higher Education, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 189-202, doi: 10.1007/s10734-006-
9042-4.
McCarthy, M. and Kuh, G.D. (2006), “Are students ready for college? What student engagement data
say”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 87 No. 9, pp. 664-669, doi: 10.1177/003172170608700909.
McIntyre, J.C., Worsley, J., Corcoran, R., Harrison Woods, P. and Bentall, R.P. (2018), “Academic and
non-academic predictors of student psychological distress: the role of social identity and
loneliness”, Journal of Mental Health, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 230-239, doi: 10.1080/09638237.2018.
1437608.
Millican, J. and Bourner, T. (2011), “Student-community engagement and the changing role and
context of higher education”, Educationþ Training, Vol. 53 Nos 2/3, pp. 89-99, doi: 10.1108/
00400911111115645.
Mortenson, S.T. (1999), Mathematics for Computer Graphics Applications, Industrial Press.
Mortenson, S.T. (2006), “Cultural differences and similarities in seeking social support as a response to
academic failure: a comparison of American and Chinese college students”, Communication
Education, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 127-146.
Musil, C.M. (2009), “Educating students on personal and social responsibility”, in Civic Engagement
in Higher Education: Concepts and Practices, pp. 49-68.
Nguyen, C.P. (2011), “Challenges of student engagement in community colleges”, The Vermont
Connection, Vol. 32 No. 1, available at: https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/tvc/vol32/iss1/7 (accessed
19 July 2023).
€ Y. and Boyacı, A. (2021), “The role of student engagement in student outcomes in higher
Oz,
education: implications from a developing country”, International Journal of Educational
Research, Vol. 110, 101880, doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101880.
Paswan, A.K. and Ganesh, G. (2009), “Higher education institutions: satisfaction and loyalty among
international students”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 65-84,
doi: 10.1080/08841240902904869.
Pool, S. (2022), “Student about challenges: take part and experience it”, available at: https://www.eciu.
eu/news/student-about-challenges-take-part-and-experience-it (accessed 20 July 2023).
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Becker, J.M. (2015), “SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt”,
Journal of Service Science and Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 32-49.
Robinson, C.D., Lee, M.G., Dearing, E. and Rogers, T. (2018), “Reducing student absenteeism in the
early grades by targeting parental beliefs”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 55
No. 6, pp. 1163-1192, doi: 10.3102/0002831218772274.
Sadker, M. and Sadker, D. (1994), “Missing in interaction”, Failing at Fairness: How America’s
Schools Cheat Girls.
Sax, L.J. (2008), The Gender Gap in College: Maximizing the Developmental Potential of Women and
Men, Jossey-Bass/Wiley, San Francisco.
Schlesinger, W., Cervera, A. and Perez-Caba~ nero, C. (2017), “Sticking with your university: the
importance of satisfaction, trust, image, and shared values”, Studies in Higher Education,
Vol. 42 No. 12, pp. 2178-2194, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1136613.
Shochet, I.M., Homel, R., Cockshaw, W.D. and Montgomery, D.T. (2008), “How do school Higher Education,
connectedness and attachment to parents interrelate in predicting adolescent depressive Skills and Work-
symptoms?”, Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 676-681, Based Learning
doi: 10.1080/15374410802148053.
Sobieraj, S. and Kr€amer, N.C. (2019), “The impacts of gender and subject on experience of
competence and autonomy in STEM”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 10, 447102, doi: 10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.01432.
Summerlee, A.J.S. (2010), “Challenge of engagement inside and outside the classroom”, available at:
https://portlandpress.com/DocumentLibrary/Umbrella/Wenner%20Gren/Vol%2085/0850067.
pdf (accessed 24 July 2023).
Sung, M. and Yang, S.U. (2009), “Student–university relationships and reputation: a study of the links
between key factors fostering students’ supportive behavioral intentions towards their
university”, Higher Education, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 787-811, doi: 10.1007/s10734-008-9176-7.
Trogden, B.G., Kennedy, C. and Biyani, N.K. (2023), “Mapping and making meaning from
undergraduate student engagement in high-impact educational practices”, Innovative Higher
Education, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 145-168, doi: 10.1007/s10755-022-09608-7.
University Grants Commission (2022), “Fostering social responsibility and community engagement in
higher educational institutions in India 2.0”, available at: https://www.ugc.gov.in/pdfnews/
1906947_Revised-Draft-Framework-in-the-light-of-NEP-2020.pdf
Wentzel, K.R. and Ramani, G.B. (2016), “Peer influence on students’ motivation, academic
achievement, and social behavior”, in Wentzel, K.R. and Ramani, G.B. (Eds), Handbook of
Social Influences in School Contexts, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 23-40.
Wigfield, A. and Eccles, J.S. (2000), “Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation”,
Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 68-81.
Woodfield, R., Jessop, D. and McMillan, L. (2016), “Gender differences in undergraduate attendance
rates”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-22, doi: 10.1080/
03075070500340127.
Xu, B., Stephens, J.M. and Lee, K. (2023), “Assessing student engagement in collaborative learning:
development and validation of new measure in China”, Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 395-405, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00737-x (accessed
10 July 2023).
Yılmaz, F.G.K. and Yılmaz, R. (2023), “Exploring the role of sociability, sense of community, and
course satisfaction on students’ engagement in flipped classrooms supported by Facebook
groups”, Journal of Computers in Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 135-162, doi: 10.1007/s40692-
022-00226-y.
Zyngier, D. (2007), “The challenge of student engagement—what the students say they want—putting
young people at the centre of the conversation”, Learning Landscapes, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 93-116,
available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275036912_The_challenge_of_student_
engagement_-_what_the_students_say_they_want_-_putting_young_people_at_the_centre_of_
the_conversation (accessed 19 July 2023).

Further reading
Kuh, G.D. (1995), “The other curriculum: out-of-class experiences associated with student learning
and personal development”, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 123-155, doi: 10.
2307/2943909.
Lowe, T. (Ed.) (2023), Advancing Student Engagement in Higher Education: Reflection, Critique and
Challenge, 1st ed., Routledge, available at: doi: 10.4324/9781003271789
Melaville, A., Berg, A.C. and Blank, M.J. (2006), Community-Based Learning: Engaging Students for
Success and Citizenship, The Coalition for Community Schools, Institute for Educational
Leadership, Washington, DC, available at: http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/
AssetManager/CBL_Book_1_27_06.pdf
HESWBL Mosher, R. and MacGowan, B. (1985), “Assessing student engagement in secondary schools:
alternative conceptions, strategies of assessing, and instruments”, available at: https://files.eric.
ed.gov/fulltext/ED272812.pdf (accessed 15 January 2020).
Nusche, D. (2008), “Assessment of learning outcomes in higher education: a comparative review of
selected practices”, Innovaci
on Educativa, Vol. 8 No. 45, pp. 1-15.

About the author

Sahil Malik is also affiliated with the Gitarattan International Business School, New Delhi, India.
Amandeep Dhaliwal is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: amandeep.slm@mriu.
edu.in

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]