University Students’ Engagement and Academic Achievement in Ethiopian Public Universities

INTRODUCTION

According to Willms (2003), there are common approaches/controversies about the relationship between engagement and students‟ academic achievement. The first is that engagement precedes academic achievement, which means when students become less engaged in their school activities, academic performance begins to suffer. On the other hand, failure to succeed in academic work results failure in engagement among students and they withdraw from school activities. It may also happen that causal relationship between engagement and academic achievement depends on academic ability, family, school context and teachers teaching style. Willms (2003) studied and found that the correlation between academic achievement and engagement is moderate and suggested that there are many students with high achievement who are not engaged and vice versa. According to the study of Willms (2003) schools with high average levels of sense of belonging students also tend to have high average levels of participation. The correlations between the two engagement outcomes /emotional and behavioral/and the measures of performance are also moderately strong. From this finding, it can be concluded that students with better emotional engagement have high behavioral engagement, since belongingness is mostly related to emotional engagement and participation is related to behavioral engagement. Furthermore this finding in turn indicated that the relationship of emotional engagement and behavioral engagement with academic achievement performance are in moderate correlation. Willms (2003) further draw implication for his study. The weak correlations at student level suggest that teachers and guidance counsellors are likely to encounter students who have a very low sense of belonging/emotional engagement/, even though they participate in school activities, and their literacy skills/academic achievement/ are fairly strong. Students with low participation/behavioral engagement/ are likely to have somewhat poorer literacy skills /academic achievement/ than those who have attended most classes/behavioral engagement/; however, there are many students who miss school, skip classes and arrive late for school/less behavioral engagement/ who also show reasonably strong literacy skills/academic achievement/.One of the most surprising findings of this research is that in every country there is a

engagement/or have low levels of participation/behavioral engagement/. Educators cannot thus presume that youths with average or above-average literacy skills/academic achievement/ necessarily feel they belong at school, or value schooling outcomes. Generally researchers found that there are relationships between students‟ engagement and their academic achievement. However, the studies indicated some inconsistencies on the relationship between students‟ engagement and their academic achievement. There were significant relationships between the students‟ academic achievement and student engagement as well as between their academic achievement and especially the dimensions of cognitive engagement, behavioral engagement and sense of belonging (Gunuc, 2014, Sbrocco, 2009). These studies also found out that cognitive, behavioral and emotional engagements predicted academic achievement and explained with a rate of 10%. .It was also found out that the students with high engagement scores higher levels of academic achievement scores and that those with low student engagement scores lower levels of academic achievement. There are studies that indicate no significant relationship was found between the academic achievement score and the variables of valuing, peer relationships (emotional engagement). Jonas (2016) studied and found that the effect of students‟ engagement on academic achievement was found to be low after controlling of variables such as school support. This finding further indicated that there were positive correlations with achievement with no statistically significant correlation across the four scales of cognitive engagement (self-regulation, deep processing, shallow processing, and persistence. On the other hand, Fredricks et al. (2004) found and suggested that out of the three components of students‟ engagement, behavioral engagement is the strongest predictor of academic success. Hence, behavioral engagement indicators such as class attendance are strong predictors of low achievement and high dropouts in many education systems. A positive relationship between students‟ engagement and critical thinking and higher grades was found. (Abbing, 2003). Here, it can be concluded that cognitive engagement, which consisted of critical thinking, is associated to more engagement and high grades than any other dimensions of engagement. There are scholars who explained the relationship between students‟ achievement and engagement with theories and models. Finn (1989) studied the relationship between students‟ achievement and engagement in terms of theories and models. Finn students‟ school drop-out. The model is based on the idea that successful students identify themselves with their schools and that the unsuccessful ones cannot do so. It was claimed that participation in school and class activities increases students‟ performance and their achievement and students‟ performance has influence on their feeling of identifying themselves with the school/emotional engagement/. Based on the “quality of effort” model, Astin (1984) developed his theory called “theory of involvement”. This theory assumes that the more students are involved in both academic and social aspects of their college experience, the more they learn. It can be called as student development theory based on student involvement. It refers to the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience. A highly involved student is one who “devotes considerable energy studying, spends much time on campus, participates actively in student organizations, and interacts frequently with faculty members and other students. Astin (1999) involvement theory outlines basic assumptions .Astin‟s (1984) input-environment-outcome (I-E-O) model of student involvement and learning states that the quality and quantity of student interactions directly influences student levels of learning and development. Scholars indicated that students engagement for their learning is now days getting deteriorating. On longitudinal study, Eva Van de gaer et ala (2009) found that an overall decline in school engagement across students of secondary schools. Senterre (2012) also indicated in his review of literature that one in four students are classified as having a low sense of belonging/affective engagement), and about one in five students has very low participation/behavioral engagement). This lack of engagement among students have both individual cost and societal and. Therefore, high level of university students‟ engagement is hugely important and key aspects of quality education as they determine the disposition towards meaningful learning at schools or universities. Chalmers (2007) found that students‟ engagement is important for the quality of learning students earn for university education. This is because students who are committed to their learning have opportunity to actively participate in lifelong learning exposures, taking their engagement experience in their university education to other forms of purposeful activities .This indirectly benefits for personal life of the students and to country in general by making students to use their engagement experience to contribute positively for the community.

make every citizen earn better life terms of stability, democracy and socio economic development. In line with this premises, Ethiopia have expended colleges and universities. On the other hand, Ethiopian higher education system is faced by challenges in bringing quality education among students, which it could be related to students‟ degree of engagement. The relationship between students‟ engagement and academic achievement, which is a key for quality education, was not studied at all and hence the status and trend of university students‟ engagement in relation to academic achievement remains unknown. According to Meseret (2018), there are few studies related to methods of teaching at universities and these studies are about the general practice of teachers‟ method of teaching. It was difficult to get a research paper, government or nongovernment report that indicate the relationship of students engagement with academic achievement in public universities of Ethiopia. Having the above mentioned issues as justification, the present study has the following specific objectives. 1. To investigate the status of students engagement at public universities

Target population of this study consisted of second and third year undergraduate students at public universities of Ethiopia. Three universities were selected using simple random sampling technique. For the purpose of selecting the sample, the list of all colleges and departments were obtained. Using two-stage sampling, the researcher first randomly selected three colleges in each university, namely natural science and engineering, social science and business, health science. Next, four departments randomly selected in each college. Thus, a total of 12 departments from each three universities were part of the study. The second stage of sampling consisted of randomly selecting 15 students from 12 departments in each college to study the

The main measure of the study were undergraduate second and third year university students engagement teachers self-report questionnaire scale and academic achievement ,which was measured by cumulative grade point average(CGPA) . 1. University students’ engagement: Newoman (1992) define students engagement as the students‟ psychological investment and effort directed toward learning, understanding and mastering knowledge, skill that academic work intends to promote. Most contemporary engagement theorists highlight behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, and cognitive engagement as central engagement indicators (Christenson, Reschly, & Wylie, 2012; Fredricks et al, 2004). In addition, most instruments employed for assessing students‟ engagement are self-report rating questionnaires (Veiga etal, 2014)

University students‟ engagement that indicated students‟ involvement which ranges from effort and persistence to prosocial classroom conduct.( Veiga F. et al ,2014)

Emotional engagement consisted of higher interest and enthusiasm with low anxiety and boredom towards learning experience. (Veiga F. et al 2014)

strategic thinking, sophisticated learning strategy and self-regulation in their learning process. (Veiga F. et al 2014)

This refers to university students‟ grade point average for all semesters which was described as cumulative grade point average (CGPA) for the courses in which they were enrolled for years in their respective departments. According to Robbins et al. (2004), academic performance, as measured by Grade-Point-Averages (GPAs) is still the most widespread performance measure even though problems with grading reliability and department and institutional grading system differences exist. Academic achievement, which was described by cumulative grade point average/CGPA/, were collected from registrar of each college in the year 2017/18 for each selected public universities of Ethiopia

Analysis of the present study involves descriptive statistics, like mean and standard deviation, multiple linear regressions. Descriptive statistics such as mean and standard deviation were employed to investigate the status of engagement among students. Finally person coefficient of correlation was used to investigate the relationship of students‟ engagement and academic achievement. To examine the contribution of each dimensions of university students‟ engagement, analysis of regression was computed. Analysis of regression examines which dimensions of engagement significantly explained university students‟ engagement for the present study.

The first objective of the present study was to investigate the level of university students‟ engagement at public universities. University students‟ engagement were assessed in line with three dimensions of engagement namely, behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement. Accordingly, mean, maximum and minimum score of the three dimensions of university student engagement were computed and analyzed.

The mean score of behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement were found to be 3.768, 2.335 and 3.026 respectively. The highest mean score of university students‟ engagement was displayed for behavioral dimension. This indicated that university students were found to be moderately above average at involvement in effort ( doing and submitting assignments and activities)persistence (following university rules , active in becoming group members when group assignments are given) and prosocial classroom behavior (having less problem with their classroom mates and teachers). The next higher mean score of university students‟ engagement was observed for cognitive dimension. This indicated that university students were found to be moderate in terms of the level of cognitive engagement such as strategic thinking, self-regulation strategies, being thoughtful and purposeful in their learning tasks. The least mean score of university student‟s engagement was observed for emotional engagement dimensions. This entailed that university students‟ level of emotional engagement such as interest, enthusiasm and concentration towards their learning was least when compared to any other dimensions of engagement and expected mean scores.

One of the objectives of the present study was to predict the effect of each engagement dimensions for academic achievement of university students. In addition, the relationship and contribution of each engagement dimensions to academic achievement, which was described by CGPA, were investigated. Accordingly, multiple linear regressions was computed and analyzed. The relationship between academic achievement/CGPA/ with each engagement dimensions were computed by person coefficients of correlation. In addition, model summary(R square), ANOVA and coefficients (standardizes beta coefficients) were computed and analyzed. To run all these, Preliminary assumptions and tests of independent errors, normality, homodscasity and Collinearity tests were checked. The assumptions were not violated.

As indicated on table 2, all engagement dimensions (behavioral, emotional and cognitive) were found to be positively and significantly correlated to academic achievement of university students. Specifically, the value of Pearson coefficient of correlation was found to be 0.548, 0.217 and 0.172 between behavioral engagement and academic achievement, between emotional engagement and academic achievement, and between cognitive engagement and academic achievement respectively. The relationship between behavioral engagement and academic achievement were found to be most strong and significant(r=0.548). This indicated that among all dimensions of engagement, behavioral engagement found to have strong and positive significant relationship on academic achievement.

From the model summery above, R Square was found to be .338. This indicated that variance in academic achievement was explained by university students engagement. The regression model, which includes the dimensions of university engagement, explained 33.8% of the variance in academic achievement (which is represented by CGPA). 33.8% of variance in academic achievement was found to be explained by university students‟ engagement. Next, the analysis of ANOVA of regression were computed to investigate whether university students engagement were found to be significantly explain academic achievement.

On table 4 above, the multiple regression model with all engagement dimension predictors produced significant contribution to academic achievement of students at public university of Ethiopia .F (3, 526) = 89.542, p < .000. As university students significantly explained academic achievement of students, further analysis of the contribution of each dimensions of engagement towards academic achievement were employed. Next, the contribution of each engagement dimension was computed and analyzed. Table 5: Contribution of each engagement to academic achievement (CGPA) On table 7 above, it was displayed that university students engagement significantly predicted academic achievement ,B=.527,t(526)=14.767,P<0.000 for behavioral engagement, B=.161.t(526)=.161,P<.000 for emotional engagement ,and B=.082,(526)=2.232 ,p<0.000 for cognitive engagement. To identify and compare the contribution of each engagement dimensions, it was referred to beta values in standardized coefficients. Accordingly, the largest beta coefficient was .527, which was for behavioral engagement of students. This means that behavioral engagement of university students made strongest unique contribution to explain academic achievement of students, which was described by CGPA. For a change in one unit of behavioral engagement score, there will be a change by 0.527 unit of academic achievement, which was described by CGPA. The next unique contribution was made by emotional engagement with beta value of .161. The least contribution for academic achievement of university students was made by their cognitive engagement with beta value of .082.

of students was above the expected mean. The cognitive engagement was found to be on the expected mean. However, the emotional engagement was found to be below the expected mean. The finding of the present study was found to be indicated similar result to previous studies on the status of students‟ engagement on their learning. For example, Senterre (2012) studied and found that though there are students who are actively involved in academics and non-academics activities and develop sense of belongingness and valuing class /school activities, majority of them are not actively engaged for their learning. On longitudinal study, Eva Van de gaer et. al. (2009) found similar results that indicate an overall decline in school engagement across students of secondary schools. The present study indicated that there were positive significant relationship between university students‟ engagement and academic achievement. The present study also found that, among the university engagement dimensions, behavioral engagement of university students makes strongest unique contribution to explain academic achievement of students. The reason could be that as far as the students came to the class regularly and submit the assignments on time, he/ she will be supposed to get some scores as a reward and the examinations prepared are mostly requiring rote memorization not critical thinking. Previous results indicated both consistencies and inconsistencies about the relationship between students‟ engagement and academic achievement. There were significant relationships between the students‟ academic achievement and student engagement, especially the dimensions of cognitive engagement, behavioral engagement and sense of belongingness (Gunuc, 2014, Sbrocco, 2009). On the other hand, Fredricks et al. (2004) found that only behavioral engagement is the strongest predictor of academic success. Hence, behavioral engagement indicators such as class attendance are strong predictors of low achievement and dropout themselves in many education systems. Willms (2003) also found that the correlation between academic achievement and engagement is moderate and suggests that there are many students with high achievement who are not engaged. Furthermore, the findings from Jonas (2016) suggested that student engagement has a positive but low association with academic achievement.

Depending on the findings of the study, the following concluding notes were made The mean score of behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement of university student were found to be in various degrees. The mean score of This implied that university students‟ engagement was fond to be low. This can be an indication that university education has to be designed in the way students engagement becomes high. Nowadays, it is accepted that teaching students for how to become better and independent learners should be the primary goal for higher education. Accordingly, all learning environments like teacher related issues should be designed to enrich the learning process with in each and every student. This can be possible by implemented when the teacher‟s task is to show the wisdom of knowledge and enthuse, stimulate and encourage the student to be eager in search of new knowledge, value, skill and wisdoms across their discipline for use of themselves and their society. This could happen when varieties of teaching styles, active learning method and varieties of assessment tools are going to be employed. Therefore learning tasks that involve cognitive engagement such critical thinking, strategic thinking and problem solving ability for practical challenges can be practiced during teaching learning and assessment process. Designing programs that can make students contribute and involve in extra-curricular activities could improve emotional engagements like positive reactions to teachers, classmates, academics, and universities. The relationship between university students‟ engagement and academic achievement was found to be positively significant and 33.8% of the variance in academic achievement was explained by university students‟ engagement. Among the university engagement dimensions, behavioral engagement of university students makes strongest unique contribution to explain academic achievement of students. This implied that improving students‟ engagement in general and behavioral engagement in particular significantly improves students‟ academic achievement. However, care has to be taken which engagement improves academic achievement. This was because academic achievement, especially in Ethiopian education system is highly related to examinations that mostly require rote memorization, which does indicate little emotional or cognitive engagement on the side of students. Furthermore, quality of university education should be mostly viewed on students‟ cognitive engagement like being thoughtful and purposeful in the learning tasks and being willing to exert the effort necessary to comprehend complex ideas or master difficult skills.

1. Abbing J. (2013). The effect of students' engagement on academic achievement in

2. Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of college student development, 40(5), pp. 518-529. 3. Chalmers D. (2007). Teaching and learning indicators in Australia, academy exchange. Winter, pp. 38-9 4. Eva Van de Gaer, Heidi Pustjens, Jan Van Damme & Agnes De Munter (2006). Tracking and the effects of school‐related attitudes on the language achievement of boys and girls , British Journal of Sociology of Education Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 293–309, Taylor & Francis. 5. Finn, J. (1989). Withdrawing from school Review of Educational Research, 59(2), pp. 117-142. 6. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), pp. 59-109. 7. Gunuc S. (2014). The relationships between student engagement and their academic achievement. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications October 2014 Volume: 5 Issue: 4 Article: 19 ISSN 1309-6249. 8. Hardy C. and Bryson C. (2010). Student engagement: paradigm change or political expediency? Networks Magazine issue 09 spring 2010 –Features 9. Jennifer A. Fredricks, Phyllis C. Blumenfeld, and Alison H. Paris (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research Spring 74(1). pp. 59-109. 10. Jonas A.H. (2016).The Relationship between Student Engagement and Academic Achievement. A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland. 11. Lester.D. (2013) . A Review of the Student Engagement Literature focus on colleges, universities, and schools, Volume 7, Number 1. 12. Maroco.J, Maroco .A.L., Alvares.J. , Campos B.D., and Fredricks A.J. (2016). University

12.

13. Meseret .G and Ananada. R (2018). University students‟ engagement; a case of three public universities in Amhara regional state, Ethiopia. International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Literature Vol. 6, Issue 12, pp. 197-206. 14. Molla, T. (2014). “Knowledge aid as instrument of regulation: World Bank‟s non-lending higher education support for Ethiopia”, Comparative Education, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 229-248 15. Newman, F. M. (1989). Student engagement and high school reform. Educational Leadership, 46(5), pp. 34-36. 16. Okoli D. T. (2013). Sense of place and student engagement among undergraduate students at a major public research university, in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Colorado State University, dissertation. 17. Pallant J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. 18. Rhode J.H. (2007). Confronting the Challenges of Student Engagement: A Case Study of a School-Based Intervention a dissertation in March 2007 in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the doctoral degree in public policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School. 19. Sbrocco. R. (2009). Student Academic Engagement and the Academic Achievement Gap between Black and White Middle School Students: Does Engagement Increase Student Achievement? a dissertation submitted to the faculty of the graduate school of the university of Minnesota, for partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of education 20. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed). New York: HarperCollins. 21. Veiga H. F., Reeve. J., Wentzel K. and Robu V. (2014). Assessing students‟ engagement: A review of instruments with psychometric qualities. International

22. Willms J.D. (2003). Student engagement at school a sense of belonging and participation, Organization for economic co-operation and development (OECD).

Research Scholar, Department of Psychology and Parapsychology, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, India