The Journal of Educational Research

ISSN: 0022-0671 (Print) 1940-0675 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

The Relationship Between Student Engagement

and Academic Performance: Is It a Myth or Reality?

Jung-Sook Lee

To cite this article: Jung-Sook Lee (2014) The Relationship Between Student Engagement and
Academic Performance: Is It a Myth or Reality?, The Journal of Educational Research, 107:3,
177-185, DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2013.807491

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.807491

Published online: 26 Nov 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5735

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 31 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjer20
The Journal of Educational Research, 107:177–185, 2014
Copyright 
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0022-0671 print / 1940-0675 online
DOI:10.1080/00220671.2013.807491
The Relationship Between Student
Engagement and Academic
Performance: Is It a Myth or Reality?
JUNG-SOOK LEE
University of New South Wales, Australia
ABSTRACT. The author examined the relationship between
student engagement and academic performance, using U.S.
data of the Program for International Student Assessment
2000. The sample comprised 3,268 fifteen-year-old students
from 121 U.S. schools. Multilevel analysis showed that be-
havioral engagement (defined as effort and perseverance in
learning) and emotional engagement (defined as sense of be-
longing) significantly predicted reading performance. The ef-
fect of emotional engagement on reading performance was
partially mediated through behavioral engagement. Findings
from the present study suggest that educators, policy makers,
and the research community need to pay more attention to
student engagement and ways to enhance it.
Keywords: academic performance, effort, sense of belonging,
student engagement
D espite the benefits of student engagement found
in the literature, its relationship with academic
performance has not been firmly established. Ac-
cordingly, the present study examined the effect of student
engagement on academic performance using U.S. data of
the Program for International Student Assessment 2000
(Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
[OECD], 2000). In the present study, student engagement
included behavioral and emotional components and read-
ing literacy represented academic performance. It was also
tested whether behavioral engagement mediated the effect
of emotional engagement on reading performance.
Student Engagement
It is estimated that 25% to 60% of U.S. students are disen-
gaged from school (Klem & Connell, 2004; Willms, 2003).
This phenomenon is not unique to the United States and
appears to be common and widespread. In a study using
data from the Program for International Student Assessment
2000 (OECD, 2000), Willms (2003) found that 25% of stu-
dents in the 43 countries reported a low sense of belonging,
and 20% of students reported low participation. Lack of stu-
dent engagement at school has been a serious concern for
educators and policy makers because disengaged students are
more likely to struggle academically, to drop out of school,
and to have problem behaviors (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, &
Paris, 2004). Taking a developmental perspective, academic
failure and dropping out are not isolated events but the re-
sult of a long-term process of disengagement from school
(Alexander, Entwisle, & Horsey, 1997; Randolph, Fraser, &
Orthner, 2004). Thus, enhancing student engagement may
help prevent these poor student outcomes.
Student engagement is a multifaceted concept. Re-
searchers have identified several components of student en-
gagement (e.g., behavioral, emotional/psychological, cogni-
tive, academic; Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008;
Fredricks et al., 2004). Although there is no consensus on
which of these components is important, most studies have
included behavioral and emotional components. The term
behavioral engagement usually encompasses a broad range of
behaviors at school, from merely showing up to actively par-
ticipating in academic or nonacademic activities. Fredricks
et al. (2004), for example, identified three forms of behav-
ioral engagement: positive conduct, involvement in learn-
ing, and participation in school-related activities. Positive
conduct includes attending class, avoiding disruptive behav-
iors, responding to directions, and following classroom rules.
Involvement in learning includes concentrating, making an
effort, being persistent, contributing to class discussion, ask-
ing questions, finishing homework, and spending extra time
on class-related learning. Participation in school-related ac-
tivities includes taking part in extracurricular activities such
as sports teams or student organizations.
Emotional engagement, also called affective or psycholog-
ical engagement, includes affective reactions and having a
sense of belonging at school (Finn, 1993; Willms, 2003). Af-
fective reactions toward tasks, school, and people at school
(e.g., teachers or peers) may include liking, disliking, being
interested, being bored, being happy, being sad, or being
Address correspondence to Jung-Sook Lee, School of Social Sciences,
University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia. (E-mail:
js.lee@unsw.edu.au)
178
anxious. Positive emotional reactions to tasks or people can
lead to students having a sense of belonging at school. Hav-
ing a sense of belonging refers to feeling accepted, included,
respected, and/or valued by people at school (Goodenow
& Grady, 1993; Willms, 2003). Other relevant terms used
are identification with school (Finn, 1993), school con-
nectedness (Shochet, Dadds, Ham, & Montague, 2006),
and attachment to school (Johnson, Crosnoe, & Elder,
2001).
The Effect of Behavioral Engagement on Academic Performance
The effect of student engagement on academic perfor-
mance varies depending on the components of engagement
that are examined. In a study by Willms (2003), behav-
ioral engagement was defined as attendance and punctuality
and it had a moderate correlation (.48–.51) with students’
literacy skills at the school level. Further, a positive relation-
ship between behavioral engagement and academic perfor-
mance was found in studies that examined effort in learning
(Carbonaro, 2005), attendance (Lamdin, 1996), and ex-
tracurricular activities (Jordan, 1999). The positive effect
of behavioral engagement on academic performance seems
to be more evident among academically resilient students
(Borman & Overman, 2004; Finn & Rock, 1997). For ex-
ample, in a study of 925 low socioeconomic status (SES)
minority students, Borman and Overman (2004) found that
greater engagement in academic activities was a character-
istic shared by all students who were deemed to be aca-
demically resilient, defined by having higher than predicted
mathematics scores (predictions were based on previous
mathematics scores and individual SES).
The Effect of Emotional Engagement on Academic Performance
Evidence regarding the effect of emotional engagement
on academic performance is mixed. Studies using measures
of emotional engagement combined with behavioral en-
gagement (Borman & Overman, 2004; Connell, Spencer,
& Aber, 1994; Sirin & Rogers-Sirin, 2004) have generally
found a positive relationship between engagement and aca-
demic performance. However, emotional engagement focus-
ing on a sense of belonging or identification with school was
not a strong predictor of academic performance in Willms
(2003) or Finn (1993). On the other hand, a study of
214 Mexican American high school students (Gonzalez &
Padilla, 1997) found that the level of sense of belonging at
school was significantly associated with the grade point aver-
age (GPA) of a student. Nonetheless, research has supported
the significance of emotional engagement in the decision to
drop out (e.g., Ekstrom, Goertz, Pollack, & Rock, 1986; Finn,
1989). For instance, in an ethnographic study of adolescents
who dropped out of school (Fine, 1991), one of the primary
reasons reported for dropping out was not being emotionally
engaged with the school.
The Journal of Educational Research
Behavioral Engagement as a Mediator
One possibility is that emotional engagement indirectly
influences academic performance through behavioral en-
gagement. According to self-determination theory (Deci,
Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991), individuals are more
willing to do uninteresting activities when they are valued
by people to whom they feel connected. Students are likely to
make an effort and persevere in learning when they feel they
belong to their schools and that learning is a valued activity
at school. In other words, behavioral engagement is likely
to be influenced by emotional engagement. Given the posi-
tive relationship found between behavioral engagement and
academic performance, there is a possibility that emotional
engagement influences academic performance through be-
havioral engagement. However, this relationship needs to
be explicitly tested.
Student engagement at school is influenced by vari-
ous individual and family factors (e.g., gender, grade level,
race/ethnicity, language spoken at home, SES). For example,
Finn (1989, as cited in Marks, 2000) found that girls were
consistently more engaged than boys. Student engagement is
also related to grade level. According to Klem and Connell
(2004), students become less engaged with school as they
progress from elementary to middle school and from middle
to high school. There has been a consistent and significant
achievement gap among racial/ethnic groups, and emotional
disengagement of students of color has been offered as one
explanation for this phenomenon. Steele (1997), for exam-
ple, argued that African American students disidentify with
school due to frustration caused by a stereotype threat—the
anxiety that their actions will confirm existing nega-
tive stereotypes about African Americans. For nonnative
English speakers, the language spoken at home can be related
to student engagement because it may reflect the accultura-
tion and English proficiency of students. Furthermore, it has
been widely reported that family SES is significantly related
to student outcomes (Henderson & Berla, 1994; Henderson
& Mapp, 2002). Schools also exert great influence on student
engagement (Finn & Voelkl, 1993; Marks, 2000; Pellerin,
2005; Willms, 2003). Levels of student engagement have
been found to vary from school to school even after con-
trolling for students’ individual characteristics. These dif-
ferences have been attributed to a variety of school-related
factors such as school size, teacher–student relationships,
academic and disciplinary climate, student composition, and
instructional activities. Therefore, the present study tested
three following hypotheses after controlling for student and
school background:
Hypothesis 1(H1 ): Behavioral engagement would predict aca-
demic performance.
H2 : Emotional engagement would predict academic perfor-
mance.
H3 : The effect of emotional engagement on academic per-
formance would be mediated through behavioral engage-
ment.
The Journal of Educational Research
Method
Study Design
The present study used U.S. data of the Program for In-
ternational Student Assessment 2000 (PISA 2000; OECD,
2000). Literacy, mathematics, and science skills were as-
sessed by the OECD at three different time points, placing
emphasis on a different outcome domain each year. In PISA
2000, reading literacy was the outcome domain of interest.
Forty-three countries took part in the development and ad-
ministration of PISA 2000. In addition to performance data,
PISA 2000 collected information from students and school
principals about psychological, social, economic, cultural,
and educational factors related to student performance.
Sample
The target population of PISA 2000 (OECD, 2000) was
15-year-old students. In the United States, a three-stage
stratified sampling procedure was used. At the first stage, 52
geographic areas were chosen, of which 220 schools were
sampled. In each participating school, up to 35 eligible stu-
dents were randomly selected. Because less than 85% of
initially selected schools achieved more than 50% student
response rates, replacement schools were used to achieve an
acceptable school response rate. With 116 initially selected
schools and 29 replacement schools, 145 schools partici-
pated. As a result, the U.S. data include 3,700 students in
145 schools. Weighted student response rates were 85% and
weighted school response rates were 70% after replacement
(Adams & Wu, 2002). With the addition of 146 students
from the partially responding schools, 3,846 U.S. students
were included in the international data. As the unit of anal-
ysis is students, the present study used the U.S. sample in the
international data to make full use of data collected. For the
present study, the sample was limited to ninth- and 10th-
grade students, who comprised the vast majority (98%) of
the U.S. sample. Approximately 2% of the sample was in
Grade 7, 8, or 11, and they were excluded from the study
sample in an effort to limit grade effects. The sample was fur-
ther limited to students who did not have missing values on
student engagement and academic performance. As a result,
the final sample of the present study included 3,268 students
from 121 schools.
Measures
Academic performance was measured as reading literacy.
PISA defines reading literacy as capacity to understand, use
and reflect on written texts, in order to achieve one’s goals,
to develop one’s knowledge and potential, and to partici-
pate in society (Kirsch et al., 2002, p. 25). Reading literacy
included three domains: processing skills, knowledge and
understanding, and the context of application. Behavioral
engagement was defined in this study as effort and persever-
179
ance in learning activities. Behavioral engagement scores
were derived from four items: working hard, working despite
difficulty, trying one’s best to acquire knowledge and skills,
and putting forth one’s best effort. The internal consistency
reliability (Cronbach’s α) was .83. Emotional engagement
refers to a sense of belonging at school (α = .86). This mea-
sure was derived from students’ responses to questions about
the degree to which they agree that the school is a place
where they feel that they belong, where they make friends
easily, and where other students seem to like them, or con-
versely, where they feel awkward and out of place, feel like an
outsider, or feel lonely. Factor analyses have shown that the
measures have adequate construct validity (Adams & Wu,
2002). The present study used indices of student and school
characteristics that were provided by PISA 2000 (OECD,
2000). Index scale scores were created by PISA researchers
using Rasch item response model techniques. All scale scores
were weighted likelihood estimates (Warm, 1989).
Grade, gender, race/ethnicity, language spoken at home,
individual SES, school-mean SES, and school type were co-
variates in the analysis. Grade 10 was coded as 1 whereas
Grade 9 served as the reference group. Female was coded as
1 and male was coded as 0. Using European American as the
reference group, three dummy variables of race were created
to indicate African American, Latino/Hispanic, and other.
Other included Asian American, American Indian/Alaska
Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or multiracial stu-
dents. Language spoken at home was categorized into English
(coded as 1) and other languages (coded as 0). To measure
students’ individual SES, PISA used the International Socio-
Economic Index of Occupational Status (ISEI). Students’
ISEI scores were derived from information they provided
about parental occupation and were designed to capture the
attributes of occupation that convert parents’ education to
income (Kirsch et al., 2002). The highest occupational status
of parents (HISEI) was the highest ISEI value of a student’s
father, mother, or guardian(s). School mean SES was added
to separate the contextual effect from the effect of individ-
ual SES. School mean SES represented the average SES in
each school. Using private schools as the reference group,
two dummy variables of school type were created to indicate
public schools and unknown type schools.
Data Analysis
Multilevel analysis was run in SAS 9.2 (SAS Institute,
2008). Multilevel models were estimated to adjust standard
errors for intraclass correlations because students were nested
within schools. Although a three-stage sampling procedure
was used for the PISA study in the United States, the primary
sampling units—geographical regions—were not included as
a level in the models because the effect of geographical re-
gions was not a substantive interest of the present study.
Moreover, in a simulation study using PISA 2000, Rabe-
Hesketh and Skrondal (2006) reported that “taking [primary
sampling units] into account did not necessarily increase the
180
standard errors” (p. 818). Thus, the present study utilized
two-level models, with students at Level 1 and schools at
Level 2. Random intercepts and slopes were adopted to in-
clude the unmeasured heterogeneity between schools. To
enhance the interpretability of the regression coefficients,
all continuous variables were standardized to have a mean of
0 and standard deviation of 1 before conducting multilevel
analyses (Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, & Niggli, 2006; Xu
& Wu, 2013). Dummy coded variables were not standard-
ized because standardization makes the interpretation more
complicated (Kim & Ferree, 1981).
Main effect model. To test Hypotheses 1 and 2, models
with behavioral engagement only, emotional engagement
only, and full model with both components were tested. De-
pendent variable (Yij ) was reading performance. The Level 1
model included the individual-level demographic covariates
and student engagement variables. The Level 1 equation was
as follows:
Yi j = π0 j + π1 j (FEMALE)i j + π2 j (10TH)i j + π3 j (AFR)i j
+ π4 j (LATINO)i j + π5 j (OTHER)i j
+ π6 j (ENGLISH)i j + π7 j (SES)i j +π8 j (EFFORT)i j
+ π9 j (BELONG)i j +r i j ,
where Yij is the outcome for student i in school j and π 0j is
the mean outcome in school j; π 1j is the gender difference;
π 2j is the grade difference (9 and 10); π 3j , π 4j , and π 5j are
the racial differences of outcomes for African American,
Latino/Hispanic, and other, respectively, when European
American is the reference group; π 6j is the difference due
to the language spoken at home; π 7j is the degree to which
differences in students’ SES related to outcomes; π 8j and
π 9j are the effects of behavioral engagement and emotional
engagement on reading performance, respectively; and rij is
the residual variance within schools.
In the Level 2 equations, the mean of reading performance
from the Level 1 equations (π 0j ) was regressed on school type
and the variable for school-mean SES. The Level 2 equations
were modeled as the following:
π0 j = ß00 + ß01 (SSES) j + ß02 (PUBLIC) j
+ ß03 (UNKNOWN) j + u 0 j
πp j = ßp0 +u p j , p> 0,
where ß00 is the mean of reading performance; ß01 is the
degree to which differences in reading performance between
schools related to school-mean SES; ß02 and ß03 are the
mean differences of reading performance for public schools
and unknown type schools when private schools serve as the
reference group, respectively; and u0j is the residual variance
among schools.
The Journal of Educational Research
Mediation effect model. Mediation analysis was performed
to examine whether behavioral engagement mediated the
effect of emotional engagement on academic performance.
For the sake of simplicity, reading scores are indicated as
READ, emotional engagement is indicated as BELONG,
and behavioral engagement is indicated as EFFORT in the
following description; covariates are omitted. The coeffi-
cients to calculate mediation effect was obtained from the
following models:
READ =i 1 +c(BELONG)+e 1
READ =i 2 +c  (BELONG)+b(EFFORT)+e 2
READ =i 3 +a (BELONG)+e 3
The mediation effect can be calculated either as ĉ − ĉ
or â × b̂ (Krull & MacKinnon, 2001). The most commonly
used formula to obtain standard error of the mediation effect
is the Sobel test (MacKinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007):
σâ b̂ = â 2 σb̂2 + b̂ 2 σâ2 . Here, σâ2 is the variance of â and σb̂2
is the variance of b̂.The p value of the mediation effect can
be obtained from the critical ratio: â b̂/σâ b̂ .
Explained variance indicated how much variability of the
dependent variable was accounted for by explanatory vari-
ables in the model (Snijders & Bosker, 1999). To calculate
the explained variance, the present study used the propor-
tional reduction of prediction error suggested by Snijders
and Bosker. The percentage of missingness varied from 0
(grade level) to 15.3 (SES). Thus, the multiple imputation
procedure was used to reduce possible bias due to missing
values and to make valid statistical inference (Fichman &
Cummings, 2003). Note, however, that student outcome
variables were not imputed.
Results
Sample Description
Behavioral engagement and emotional engagement were
index scale scores with means around zero and standard
deviations close to 1. The mean reading score was 514.54
(SD = 97.18). Intraclass correlation of reading performance
was .20. In other words, 20% of the variation in the stu-
dents’ reading scores resided between schools. Slightly more
than half of the students were female and about 60% were
in Grade 10. A majority of the students were European
American (62.70%) and spoke English at home (91.03%).
Individual SES scores varied widely ranging from 16 to 90
with a mean of 53.0 (SD = 16.4). This meant that the aver-
age parental occupational level was equivalent to sales work-
ers or engineering technicians. Schools also varied greatly
on the level of school mean SES, although the range was
narrower than the individual SES. The school mean SES
ranged from 31.5 to 69 and the average was 50.9 (SD = 7.2).
About 79% of the schools were public and 6% were private;
The Journal of Educational Research 181

TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics

EFFORT
0.176*** 0.106***
n % M SD

Outcome variables BELONG READ

Behavioral engagement 3,268 −0.07 1.10 0.037*
Emotional engagement 3,268 −0.03 1.12
Reading performance 3,268 514.54 97.18
Student-level predictors FIGURE 1. Mediation effect of emotional engagement
Gender on reading performance through behavioral engagement.
Male 1,546 47.03 Note. Standardized coefficients are reported. ∗ p < .05.
∗∗∗
Female 1,741 52.97 p < .001.
Grade
9 1,345 40.90
10 1,943 59.10
Race/Ethnicity The Effects of Student Engagement on Reading Performance
European American 2,061 62.70
African American 419 12.74 The full model in Table 3 showed that both behav-
Hispanic/Latino 531 16.16
Other 276 8.40
ioral engagement and emotional engagement significantly
Language at home predicted reading performance. When all covariates were
English 2,974 91.03 held at their means, a 1 standard deviation increase in be-
Other language 293 8.97 havioral engagement predicted a 0.10 standard deviation
SES 2,913 53.0 16.4 increase in reading score (p < .001) and a 1 standard de-
School-level predictors
School mean SES 121 50.9 7.2
viation increase in emotional engagement predicted a 0.04
School type standard deviation increase in reading score (p < .001). In
Public school 96 79.34 other words, students had higher reading scores when they
Private school 7 5.78 showed more effort and perseverance in learning and when
Unknown type 18 14.88 they felt a sense of belonging at school. The full model ex-
Note. SES = socioeconomic status. Other race includes Asian plained 28.0% of Level 1 variance and 61.7% of Level 2
American, American Indian–Alaska Native, Native Hawai- variance.
ian/Pacific Islander, or multiracial students. Descriptive statistics
using standardized final weights are reported. Total weighted fre-
quency may exceed the number of students in the present study. Mediation Effect
Number of students = 3,268; number of schools = 121. SES =
socioeconomic status.
Behavioral engagement was tested as a mediator of
emotional engagement effect on reading performance. As
shown in Figure 1, behavioral engagement partially medi-
approximately 15% of the schools did not report school type. ated the effect of emotional engagement on reading per-
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics using standardized fi- formance. Emotional engagement was positively associated
nal weights. Table 2 displays zero-order correlations among with behavioral engagement (B = 0.176, SE = 0.017,
student-level variables. p < .001), and behavioral engagement was positively as-
sociated with reading scores (B = 0.106, SE = 0.015, p
< .001). Thus, the mediation effect was 0.176 × 0.106
= 0.019; the standard error of the mediation effect was

TABLE 2. Correlations Among Student-Level Variables (0.176)2 × (0.015)2 + (0.106)2 × (0.017)2 = 0.000007;
and the critical ratio was 0.019/0.000007 = 5.945 (p < .001).
Behavioral Emotional Reading
engagement engagement performance SES
On the whole, the direct effect of emotional engagement on
reading was 0.037, the indirect effect was 0.019, and the to-
Behavioral — tal effect (equivalent to the sum of direct and indirect effect)
engagement was 0.056.
Emotional 0.19∗∗∗ —
engagement
Reading 0.12∗∗∗ 0.09∗∗∗ — Discussion
performance
SES 0.07∗∗∗ 0.06∗∗∗ 0.30∗∗∗ — Using U.S. data of the Program for International Student
Note. SES = socioeconomic status. Number of students is 2,913 for Assessment 2000 (OECD, 2000), the present study provided
SES and 3,268 for other variables. empirical evidence of the effects of student engagement on
∗∗∗ p < .001.
academic performance. In particular, the present study dis-
tinguished between the effect of behavioral engagement and
182 The Journal of Educational Research

TABLE 3. The Effects of Student Engagement on Reading Performance

No student Behavioral Emotional

engagement engagement only engagement only Full model

Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE

Fixed effects
Intercept −0.14 0.11 −0.15 0.11 −0.14 0.11 −0.15 0.11
Behavioral engagement 0.11∗∗∗ 0.02 0.10∗∗∗ 0.02
Emotional engagement 0.05∗∗∗ 0.01 0.04∗ 0.01
Female (male) 0.20∗∗∗ 0.03 0.17∗∗∗ 0.03 0.20∗∗∗ 0.03 0.17∗∗∗ 0.03
Grade 10 (Grade 9) 0.43∗∗∗ 0.03 0.43∗∗∗ 0.03 0.43∗∗∗ 0.03 0.43∗∗∗ 0.03
Race (European American)
African American −0.49∗∗∗ 0.05 −0.52∗∗∗ 0.05 −0.49∗∗∗ 0.05 −0.51∗∗∗ 0.05
Latino/Hispanic −0.36∗∗∗ 0.05 −0.37∗∗∗ 0.05 −0.36∗∗∗ 0.05 −0.36∗∗∗ 0.05
Other −0.15∗∗ 0.06 −0.16∗∗ 0.06 −0.14∗ 0.06 −0.15∗∗ 0.06
English at home (other) 0.10 0.06 0.12 0.06 0.10 0.06 0.11 0.06
SES 0.17∗∗∗ 0.02 0.16∗∗∗ 0.02 0.17∗∗∗ 0.02 0.16∗∗∗ 0.02
Mean SES 0.20∗∗∗ 0.02 0.20∗∗∗ 0.02 0.20∗∗∗ 0.02 0.20∗∗∗ 0.02
School type (private)
Public −0.18 0.10 −0.16 0.10 −0.17 0.10 −0.15 0.10
Unknown −0.09 0.11 −0.07 0.10 −0.08 0.11 −0.06 0.10
Random effects
English 0.05∗∗∗ 0.01 0.05∗∗∗ 0.01 0.05∗∗∗ 0.01 0.05∗∗∗ 0.01
SES 0.01∗ 0.01 0.01∗ 0.00 0.01∗ 0.01 0.01∗ 0.00
Residuals 0.67∗∗∗ 0.02 0.66∗∗∗ 0.02 0.67∗∗∗ 0.02 0.66∗∗∗ 0.02
Deviancea 8519.4 8470.1 8505.4 8463.6
AICa 8549.4 8502.1 8537.4 8497.6
BICa 8593.8 8549.3 8584.7 8547.8
Percent of variance explained
Within schools 26.8 27.9 27.0 28.0
Between schools 61.2 62.0 60.9 61.7

Note. Outcome variable is reading performance score. Continuous variables are standardized (M = 0 and SD = 1). Reference groups are in parentheses.
SES = socioeconomic status; AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion.
aDeviance, AIC, and BIC are from the first set of imputed data and it is provided only for the reference.
∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

the effect of emotional engagement. It further showed be-
havioral engagement partially mediated the effect of emo-
tional engagement on reading performance.
Behavioral engagement defined as effort and perseverance
in learning significantly predicted reading performance. Al-
though academic performance is influenced by factors other
than effort (e.g., intelligence, previous achievement), it is
likely that making an effort and persevering in learning are
prerequisite for students to learn, especially difficult mate-
rials. This finding is consistent with the existing literature
(e.g., Carbonaro, 2005; Hughes, Luo, Kwok, & Loyd, 2008).
For example, Carbonaro (2005) found that students’ effort
was strongly related to students’ learning, regardless of the
track in which a student was placed. In a study investigat-
ing the dynamics of teacher–student relationship, effort, and
achievement, Hughes et al. (2008) also found that effort sig-
nificantly predicted mathematics and reading performance.
The present study also found that emotional engagement
defined as sense of belonging was a significant predictor of
reading performance although relatively smaller in magni-
tude. This means that students with higher levels of emo-
tional engagement had significantly higher reading scores
than students with lower levels of emotional engagement.
The effect of emotional engagement on academic perfor-
mance has not been consistently found in the literature.
For example, Gonzalez and Padilla (1997) found the signifi-
cant relationship between sense of belonging and academic
performance whereas Finn (1993) and Willms (2003) did
not. Thus, this finding adds to the existing literature. More
importantly, the effect of emotional engagement on read-
ing performance was partially mediated through behavioral
engagement. In other words, students with higher levels of
emotional engagement showed higher levels of behavioral
engagement and this led to higher reading scores. Accord-
ing to Baumeister and Leary (1995), the need to belong is
a fundamental human motivation. Thus, it is understand-
able that, when student feel that they belong to school, they
want to make more effort and persevere in learning activities
that are valued by teachers and schools. As a consequence,
they are likely to perform better academically. This is an
The Journal of Educational Research
important finding because it supports schools’ efforts to pro-
mote healthy emotional development of students. Teachers
and schools may pay less attention to emotional aspects of
students while focusing on their learning behaviors that are
perceived as more directly related to academic performance.
However, the present study evidenced that emotional en-
gagement was not only directly related to learning but also
indirectly related to learning through behavioral engage-
ment.
Although student engagement is an important outcome
in itself, its importance is heightened in relation to other
outcomes (e.g., academic performance and school dropout).
The present study showed that student engagement was a
process variable that had effects on academic performance.
This finding is consistent with other studies that reported
significant relationships between student engagement and
various student outcomes (e.g., Christenson, Reschly, &
Wylie, 2012; Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, White, & Salovey,
2012). This suggests that educational interventions can tar-
get student engagement as a proximal outcome that leads to
distal outcomes such as enhanced academic performance and
reduced school dropout. Student engagement is more mal-
leable than student traits or social status indicators (Finn,
1993; Fredricks et al., 2004). Individual and family back-
ground variables (e.g., intelligence and SES) are significant
predictors of academic achievement and other student out-
comes; however, teachers and schools have no control or
limited capacities to influence these. Given the relative ease
with change and the positive relationships with student out-
comes, student engagement should receive more attention
from educators and practitioners who design and implement
various interventions at school. However, given the rela-
tively small effects found, cautions should be made in in-
terpretation of findings and the importance of individual
and family background should not be ignored in educational
interventions.
Schools can promote student engagement because student
engagement is significantly associated with school experi-
ences (Lee, 2012; Marks, 2000; Wang & Holcombe, 2010),
Teaching practice can be improved to enhance student en-
gagement in learning. For example, Wang and Holcombe
(2010) found that mastery goal was positively related to
school participation and school identification whereas per-
formance goal was negatively associated with both. Based
on this finding, they suggested that teachers could promote
students’ identification with school and their willingness to
participate by encouraging mastery of tasks and focusing on
self-improvement because this type of school climate would
provide more opportunities for students to feel successful and
competent. Marks (2000) found that students were more en-
gaged in learning when they were involved in meaningful
academic experiences in their classes (i.e., authentic instruc-
tional work). The authentic instructional work included be-
ing asked interesting questions, digging deeply into under-
standing a single topic, applying the subject to problems in
life outside of school, and discussing ideas with the teacher
183
or students. Social environment is another factor that can
influence student engagement. Teachers can support stu-
dents academically and socially (Wang & Holcombe, 2010)
and both are found to be significantly related to emotional
and behavioral engagement at school (Lee, 2012; Wang &
Holcombe, 2010). It is suggested that students are more
likely to feel belong to their school and make more effort
in learning when teachers establish supportive relationships
with students and hold high expectations for all students, re-
gardless of their academic standings (Lee, 2012). Marks also
found that social support from various sources (e.g., teach-
ers, parents, peers) significantly predicted student engage-
ment defined as effort, attentiveness, lack of boredom, and
completion of work. Hence, schools can promote student
engagement by providing effective teaching and creating
positive social environment.
However, under the accountability system where school
quality is largely determined by standardized test scores,
teachers may not afford to spend enough time on other as-
pects of student development (e.g., behavioral, emotional).
The heavy emphasis given to test scores could generate un-
intended longer-term negative consequences. For instance,
Wang and Holcombe (2010) found that competitive envi-
ronment decreased student participation and undermined
sense of belonging. The irony is that competitive environ-
ment derived from test-oriented learning could lower student
engagement and could negatively influence academic per-
formance. The emotional and behavioral developments of
students are as important as their intellectual development.
Furthermore, as found in the present study, behavioral and
emotional engagement of students can influence their learn-
ing. Therefore, in the development of future educational
policies, it is desirable to establish more comprehensive and
inclusive accountability system that utilizes multiple mea-
sures to capture significant areas of student development.
This will allow schools to invest more time and resources to
promote student engagement.
Limitations
The present study had several limitations. First, the op-
erationalization of student engagement in the present study
is limited. Behavioral engagement was defined as effort and
perseverance in learning and emotional engagement was
defined as having a sense of belonging. Operationalization
corresponded to these definitions. Student engagement has
been conceptualized and operationalized in various ways
(Fredricks et al., 2004). For example, behavioral engage-
ment can be defined as attending class, avoiding disrup-
tive behaviors, concentrating, making an effort, finishing
work, or participating in extracurricular activities. Thus,
findings of the present study may not be directly com-
parable to findings of studies using different measures of
student engagement. Second, the use of self-report mea-
sures is another limitation. Self-report measures can be
vulnerable to social desirability bias. However, self-report
184
measures are appropriate to capture an individual’s feel-
ings, perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs. Emotional engage-
ment is largely linked to the psychological aspects and self-
reporting seems to be appropriate to capture this. Given
the fact that effort and perseverance require an individ-
ual’s will and determination to continue in the face of
difficulties, self-reporting also deems to be appropriate for
behavioral engagement. However, it is possible to have dis-
crepancies between students’ perceptions and their actions.
Third, the main focus of the present study was limited to
the relationship between student engagement and academic
performance. Studies have reported that student engage-
ment and academic performance were influenced by self-
efficacy, educational aspirations, parental expectations, and
parental educational involvement, social environment of
schools (e.g., Henderson & Berla, 1994; Henderson & Mapp,
2002; Lee, 2012; Maton, Hrabowski, & Greif, 1998). In the
future, it would be worthwhile to examine the joint effects
of individual, family, and school factors. Another limitation
is related to the cross-sectional nature of PISA data. It is
not clear whether student engagement is an influence or a
consequence. Students may perform well academically be-
cause they are highly engaged at school; alternatively, they
may be highly engaged at school because they perform well
academically. Future studies testing reciprocal influences or
utilizing longitudinal data are required. Also, given the non-
experimental nature of data, the present study has limited
capacity to make causal inferences.
Conclusion
The present study verified that student engagement at
school was a significant predictor of academic performance.
By examining behavioral and emotional components of
student engagement as well as academic performance, the
present study provided a better understanding of relation-
ships among these student outcomes. The findings from the
present study can inform educators, practitioners, and policy
makers who are interested in promoting student engagement
and enhancing academic performance.
REFERENCES
Adams, R., & Wu, M. (Eds.). (2002). PISA 2000 technical report. Paris,
France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Horsey, C. S. (1997). From first grade
forward: Early foundations of high school dropout. Sociology of Education,
70, 87–107.
Appleton, J., Christenson, S., & Furlong, M. (2008). Student engagement
with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the con-
struct. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 369–386.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire
for Interpersonal attachements as a fundamental human motivation.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Borman, G. D., & Overman, L. T. (2004). Academic resilience in mathe-
matics among poor and minority students. Elementary School Journal, 104,
177–195.
Carbonaro, W. (2005). Tracking, students’ effort, and academic achieve-
ment. Sociology of Education, 78, 27–49.
The Journal of Educational Research
Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook
of research on student engagement. New York, NY: Springer.
Connell, J. P., Spencer, M. B., & Aber, J. L. (1994). Educational risk
and resilience in African-American youth: Context, self, action, and
outcomes in school. Child Development, 65, 493–506.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Mo-
tivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational
Psychologist, 26, 325–346.
Ekstrom, R. B., Goertz, M. E., Pollack, J. M., & Rock, D. A. (1986). Who
drops out of high school and why? Findings from a national study. Teachers
College Record, 87, 356–373.
Fichman, M., & Cummings, J. N. (2003). Multiple imputation for missing
data: Making the most of what you know. Organizational Research Methods,
6, 282–308.
Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban high school.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research,
59, 117–142.
Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among stu-
dents at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
221–234.
Finn, J. D., & Voelkl, K. E. (1993). School characteristics related to student
engagement. Journal of Negro Education, 62, 249–268.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School en-
gagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of
Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
Gonzalez, R., & Padilla, A. M. (1997). The academic resilience of Mexican
American high school students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences,
19, 301–317.
Goodenow, C., & Grady, K. (1993). The relationship of school be-
longing and friends’ values to academic motivation among ur-
ban adolescent students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 62,
60–71.
Henderson, A. T., & Berla, N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: The
family is critical to student achievement. Washington, DC: National Com-
mittee for Citizens in Education.
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The
impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement.
Austin, TX: National Center for Family & Community Connections
with Schools, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Hughes, J., Luo, W., Kwok, O., & Loyd, L. (2008). Teacher–student support,
effortful engagement, and achievement: A 3-year longitudinal study.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 1–14.
Johnson, M. K., Crosnoe, R., & Elder, G. H. (2001). Students’ attachment
and academic engagement: The role of race and ethnicity. Sociology of
Education, 74, 318–340.
Jordan, W. J. (1999). Black high school students’ participation in school-
sponsored sports activities: Effects on school engagement and achieve-
ment. Journal of Negro Education, 68, 54–71.
Kim, J.-O., & Ferree, D. (1981). Standardization in causal analysis. Socio-
logical Methods & Research, 10, 187–210.
Kirsch, I., De Jong, J., Lafontaine, D., McQueen, J., Mendelovits, J., &
Monseur, C. (2002). Reading for change. Paris, France: Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development.
Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher
support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health,
74, 262–273.
Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of individual
and group level mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36,
249–277.
Lamdin, D. J. (1996). Evidence of student attendance as an independent
variable in education production functions. The Journal of Educational
Research, 89, 155–162.
Lee, J.-S. (2012). The effects of the teacher-student relationship
and academic press on student engagement and academic perfor-
mance. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 330–340. doi:
10.1016/j.ijer.2012.04.006
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation anal-
ysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614.
Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Pat-
terns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educa-
tional Research Journal, 37, 153–184.
The Journal of Educational Research
Maton, K. I., Hrabowski, F. A., & Greif, G. L. (1998). Preparing the
way: A qualitative study of high-achieving African American males and
the role of the family. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26,
639–668.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2000). U.S.
national data, Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2000
[CD-ROM] (NCES 2004–006). Paris, France: Author.
Pellerin, L. A. (2005). Student disengagement and the socialization styles
of high schools. Social Forces, 84, 1159–1179.
Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2006). Multilevel modelling of complex
survey data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in
Society), 169, 805–827.
Randolph, K. A., Fraser, M. W., & Orthner, D. K. (2004). Educational
resilience among youth at risk. International Journal of Substance Use and
Misuse, 39, 747–767.
Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P.
(2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and aca-
demic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 700–712.
SAS Institute. (2008). SAS 9.2. Cary, NC: Author.
Shochet, I. M., Dadds, M. R., Ham, D., & Montague, R. (2006). School
connectedness is an underemphasized parameter in adolescent mental
health: Results of a community prediction study. Journal of Clinical Child
and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 170–179.
Sirin, S. R., & Rogers-Sirin, L. (2004). Exploring school engagement
of middle-class African American adolescents. Youth & Society, 35,
323–340.
Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic
and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
185
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape in-
tellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–
629.
Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Schnyder, I., & Niggli, A. (2006). Predicting
homework effort: support for a domain-specific, multilevel homework
model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 438–456.
Wang, M.-T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of
school environment, engagement, and academic achievement in mid-
dle school. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 633–622. doi:
10.3102/0002831209361209
Warm, T. A. (1989). Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item
response theory. Psychometrika, 54, 427–450.
Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging
and participation: Results from PISA 2000. Paris, France: Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development.
Xu, Z., & Wu, H. (2013). Self-regulation of homework behavior: homework
management at the secondary school level. The Journal of Educational
Research, 106, 1–13.
AUTHOR NOTE
Jung-Sook Lee is a Senior Lecturer at the University of
New South Wales. Her research interests include student
engagement; home–school partnerships; intergenerational
transmission of social status; and the interplay of financial,
human, social, and cultural capital.