CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,108Higher Education Research StudiesHigher Education Practises and EngagementOnline and Blended Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Student engagement in the educational interface: understanding the mechanisms of student success

Open access
Kahu, Ella R., Nelson, Karen·2018·Higher Education Research & Development
DOI 10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Student success and retention continue to be of concern for higher education institutions. Wider participation, combined with lower completion rates for non-traditional students, highlights the need for new ways of understanding the student experience to ground policy and practice. This article provides this insight by drawing together a number of key constructs to refine a recent framework of student engagement. We argue that the transition metaphor, focusing on the first year, is limited because it depicts differences between students and institutions as both transient and temporal. Instead, we use a cultural lens to introduce the educational interface as a metaphor for the individual psychosocial space within which institutional and student factors combine and student engagement in learning occurs. Incorporating the interface into the existing framework of student engagement makes three contributions to our understanding of the student experience. First, the educational interface is a tangible way of representing the complex interactions between students and institutions, and how those interactions influence engagement. Second, the refined framework highlights four specific psychosocial constructs: self-efficacy, emotions, belonging and well-being, which, we contend, are critical mechanisms for mediating the interactions between student and institutional characteristics and student engagement and success. Finally, the refined framework helps to explain why some students with demographic characteristics associated with lower completion rates are retained and do go on to successfully complete their studies, while similar others do not. These three contributions, the interface, the key constructs within it being mediating mechanisms and their explanatory utility, provide focus for the design and implementation of curricula and co-curricular initiatives aimed at enhancing student success and retention, and importantly to evaluate the impact of these interventions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 56 references

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Astin A. W., 1984, Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297
  2. 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Coates H., 2014, Australian Universities’ Review, 56, 20
  4. Fredrickson B. L., 2008, Handbook of emotions, 777
  5. Kahu E. R., Student Success
  6. Kemp D., 2014, Report of the review of the demand driven funding system
  7. Picton C., 2017, Proceedings of STARS: Students Transitions Achievement Retention and Success Conference
  8. Quinn J., 2013, Drop-out and completion in higher education in Europe among students from under-represented groups
  9. Schunk D. H., 2004, Big theories revisited, 115
  10. United States Department of Education, 2015, The condition of education 2015
  11. Williamson M., 2013, Guidance on the development and implementation of a Student Partnership Agreement in universities

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–1,000 of 1,001

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K.
Affiliations
University of the Sunshine Coast (AU)
Corresponding author
Kahu, Ella R.
ORCID
Venue
Higher Education Research & Development
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2017-07-03
Volume
37
Issue
1
Pages
58-71
ISSN
  • 0729-4360 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8366
DOI
10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197
OpenAlex
W2729369333
Cited by
1,108
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 272 · 2025: 146 · 2024: 153 · 2023: 144 · 2022: 128 · 2021: 117 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 1
FWCI
144.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Higher Education Research & Development (publishedVersion)
  • Massey Research Online (Massey University) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Southern Queensland ePrints (University of Southern Queensland) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Practises and Engagement
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
Keywords
student engagement, educational interfaces, student success, higher education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review