In a shifting and uncertain world where education is affected by ecological, ideological and social tensions, proliferating technological advancement, and the unending quest for higher quality and equitable education outcomes, one factor remains unchanged; student engagement continues to be critical for learning. Student engagement is considered a key predictor of schooling success and a precursor to positive learning outcomes (Lawson & Lawson, 2013).

The theoretical framework that informed this study is forwarded by Fredricks et al. (2004) which conceptualises student engagement as a complex and multi-dimensional construct that has behavioural, emotional and cognitive dimensions. This definition covers almost every aspect of a student and seems very broad. To provide greater conceptual clarity, one approach suggested by engagement researchers is to examine if there are cultural differences in the student engagement construct (Eccles, 2016; Reschly & Christenson, 2012). This implies giving careful consideration to the complex and rich interactions between culture, context and learner when examining student engagement (Yazzie-Mintz & McCormick, 2012).

Conducted as part of a doctoral research, this study adopts a similar approach by examining student engagement using a socio-cultural lens and seeks to understand how student engagement is defined and measured in a Malaysian classroom context. Guided by the research question, “what is the relationship between student engagement and student outcome in Malaysian schools?”, this study was undertaken in two parts. First, a validated instrument was developed for Malaysian students to measure their behavioural engagement, emotional engagement, cognitive engagement and social engagement. Then, using matched data, student engagement levels were linked to their academic results in four subject areas.  

This study contributes to the current evidence base by extending the conceptualisation of student engagement in a culturally and contextually responsive way. The result of the study supports Fredricks et al. (2016)’s subsequent and expanded student engagement framework which not only includes behavioural engagement, emotional engagement and cognitive engagement dimensions, but a fourth dimension, which is social engagement. The expanded framework was found to be relevant and well-suited for the Malaysian sample. This could be in part due to the pluralistic and collectivist nature of the Malaysian society (Hofstede, 2017) and would be worth further investigation in future research.

Furthermore, by developing an empirical model which links student engagement scores to academic outcomes that is specific to Malaysian public schools, this study adds to the existing literature on the consequential impact of student engagement on student outcome measures. Very few student engagement studies focus on countries such as Malaysia and other Low- or Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) in this regard (Wong et al., 2023).

Finally, this study highlights the value of having a student engagement measurement that is sensitive to the nuances of the Malaysian classroom context. It interrogates an existing student engagement framework which is well-theorised in the western context where it originates, but less so in emerging countries (Lei et al., 2018). By doing so, it offers a fit-for-purpose instrument for educators, researchers and policymakers to better understand how Malaysian students engage with learning and adds to an exiguous evidence base in the Malaysian classroom context.

Data for this study comprised of two sources, student engagement scores and student academic results. Student engagement scores were obtained from a student engagement questionnaire while academic results were obtained based on participants’ school-based examination scores. An online student engagement questionnaire which is appropriate for Malaysian school students was developed using a multi-cyclical and iterative process. The first cycle of the instrument development process involved panelling the instrument items with a small group of local experts (n=8). In the second cycle, the instrument was piloted with a sample of Malaysian public-school students (n = 199, aged 10 – 15) to test the validity and reliability of the instrument. Then, in the third cycle, the study was carried out with a larger sample of students from seven Malaysian public schools (n = 470, aged 10 – 15). The instrument consists of Likert-scale items that relate to four dimensions of student engagement, behavioural engagement, emotional engagement, cognitive engagement, and social engagement. Each item is presented in both English and the local language, Bahasa Melayu. The translation was conducted using a translation then back translation process by two language experts and confirmed by item panel members who are all bilingual. Academic results were provided by participants’ schools after obtaining participants’ consent based on the four core subjects in Malaysia, Bahasa Melayu, English, Mathematics and Science. A total of 396 participant data were matched between the student engagement scores and their academic scores. Correlation and linear regression analyses was used to determine the relationship between engagement and academic scores. For regressions analysis, the dependent variable was academic score while the independent variables were scores in cognitive engagement, behavioural engagement, emotional engagement and social engagement. Effect sizes were calculated for each regression model using adjusted R-square, a statistical measure that explains to what extent the variance of the dependent variable is explained by the independent variable. This study received approval to proceed from an institutional human research ethics committee and the Ministry of Education Malaysia. Participant consents were obtained from both the participants and their parents given that the participants were all minors.

The results of the study suggest that engagement scores were statistically significant predictors of academic scores with small effect sizes. When analysed by levels, cognitive and behavioural engagement were reasonably strong predictors of academic performance among students who were highly engaged. On the other hand, emotional and social engagement were weak predictors of academic performance. This is consistent with findings from engagement meta-analyses which found that behavioural engagement had the strongest association with academic outcomes followed by cognitive engagement (Chang et al., 2016; Lei et al., 2018; Wong et al., 2023). The findings provide empirical support for student engagement, especially behavioural and cognitive engagement, as predictors of academic results among Malaysian students. This study also supports the notion that context is a significant consideration when examining student engagement and its implications for student outcomes. Developing a student engagement measure that is rigorous and sensitive to the local language and cultural norms ensures the instrument has ecological validity as well as construct validity. As Malaysian policymakers and educators chart the way forward to augment student engagement in a complex education system, this study contributes to the discourse as it underscores the merit of examining student engagement in a contextually responsive manner.

Chang, D.-F., Chien, W.-C., & Chou, W.-C. (2016). Meta-analysis approach to detect the effect of student engagement on academic achievement. 10, 2441–2446. Eccles, J. S. (2016). Engagement: Where to next? Learning and Instruction, 43, 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.003 Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, (1), 59. Fredricks, J. A., Wang, M.-T., Schall Linn, J., Hofkens, T. L., Sung, H., Parr, A., & Allerton, J. (2016). Using qualitative methods to develop a survey measure of math and science engagement. Learning and Instruction, 43, 5–15. edselp. Hofstede, G. (2017). Cultural Dimensions - Geert-hofstede.com. Retrieved 19 March 2017, from https://geert-hofstede.com/cultural-dimensions.html Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New Conceptual Frameworks for Student Engagement Research, Policy, and Practice. Review of Educational Research, (3), 432. Lei, H., Cui, Y., & Zhou, W. (2018). Relationships between student engagement and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 46(3), 517–528. s3h. Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, Jangle, and Conceptual Haziness: Evolution and Future Directions of the Engagement Construct. In S. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & K. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement. (pp. 3–20). New York : Springer, c2012. Wong, Z. Y., Liem, G. A. D., Chan, M., & Datu, J. A. D. (2023). Student engagement and its association with academic achievement and subjective well-being: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. APA PsycArticles. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000833 Yazzie-Mintz, E., & McCormick, K. (2012). Finding the Humanity in the Data: Understanding, Measuring, and Strengthening Student Engagement. In S. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement. (pp. 743–762). New York : Springer, c2012.