Specialized Purpose of Each Type of Student Engagement: A Meta-Analysis

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Educational Psychology Review Pub Date : 2025-02-05 DOI:10.1007/s10648-025-09989-z
Johnmarshall Reeve, Geetanjali Basarkod, Hye-Ryen Jang, Rafael Gargurevich, Hyungshim Jang, Sung Hyeon Cheon
{"title":"Specialized Purpose of Each Type of Student Engagement: A Meta-Analysis","authors":"Johnmarshall Reeve, Geetanjali Basarkod, Hye-Ryen Jang, Rafael Gargurevich, Hyungshim Jang, Sung Hyeon Cheon","doi":"10.1007/s10648-025-09989-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Students involve themselves in learning activities multidimensionally, including behaviorally, cognitively, emotionally, and agentically. This multidimensional involvement predicts important outcomes, but it is also possible that each type of engagement might have its own specialized purpose or function. To investigate this possibility, we proposed and tested the specialized purpose hypothesis, which is that each type of engagement has its own specialized function targeted toward a specific purpose, such as to boost achievement, social support, motivation, or well-being. To test this hypothesis, we conducted four meta-analyses, utilizing multilevel random effects models. Each meta-analysis tested whether type of engagement differentially predicted students’ achievement (meta-analysis #1), social support (meta-analysis #2), motivation (meta-analysis #3), or well-being (meta-analysis #4). The database included 652 effect sizes from 62 studies within 54 articles involving 32,403 P-16 student-participants (<i>M</i><sub>age</sub> = 16.8 years-old; 51.2% female). All 62 studies measured all four types of engagement so that we could compare the relative strength of association between each type of engagement and each correlate. Behavioral engagement was the strongest predictor of achievement. Agentic engagement was the strongest predictor of social support. Cognitive engagement did not show a specialized relation with any outcome. Emotional engagement was strongly associated with both motivation and well-being. These findings generally support the specialized purpose hypothesis, but they also raise important and challenging questions for future theory and research about how to better conceptualize and measure each type of engagement.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-09989-z","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Students involve themselves in learning activities multidimensionally, including behaviorally, cognitively, emotionally, and agentically. This multidimensional involvement predicts important outcomes, but it is also possible that each type of engagement might have its own specialized purpose or function. To investigate this possibility, we proposed and tested the specialized purpose hypothesis, which is that each type of engagement has its own specialized function targeted toward a specific purpose, such as to boost achievement, social support, motivation, or well-being. To test this hypothesis, we conducted four meta-analyses, utilizing multilevel random effects models. Each meta-analysis tested whether type of engagement differentially predicted students’ achievement (meta-analysis #1), social support (meta-analysis #2), motivation (meta-analysis #3), or well-being (meta-analysis #4). The database included 652 effect sizes from 62 studies within 54 articles involving 32,403 P-16 student-participants (Mage = 16.8 years-old; 51.2% female). All 62 studies measured all four types of engagement so that we could compare the relative strength of association between each type of engagement and each correlate. Behavioral engagement was the strongest predictor of achievement. Agentic engagement was the strongest predictor of social support. Cognitive engagement did not show a specialized relation with any outcome. Emotional engagement was strongly associated with both motivation and well-being. These findings generally support the specialized purpose hypothesis, but they also raise important and challenging questions for future theory and research about how to better conceptualize and measure each type of engagement.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Psychology Review
Educational Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.
期刊最新文献
Specialized Purpose of Each Type of Student Engagement: A Meta-Analysis Using Decoding Measures to Identify Reading Difficulties: A Meta-analysis on English as a First Language Learners and English Language Learners Interventions to Teacher Well-Being and Burnout A Scoping Review Examining the Effects of Family-Implemented Literacy Interventions for School-Aged Children: A Meta-Analysis The Virtual Reality in Your Head: How Immersion and Mental Imagery Are Connected to Knowledge Retention
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1