The world has shifted towards a knowledge and digital-oriented way of living in recent years. Along with this shift, the role of the university in the development of an individual and the social world is undergoing a significant transformation (OECD, 2024). The university has to be a dynamic ecosystem in order to bring cognitive, social, and emotional developments in the students (Marginson, 2022). In the course of this change, the idea of student engagement has turned out to be an important factor in the student growth.

Engagement is a multifaceted construct that goes far beyond the basic measures of attendance or completion, according to the higher education literature. In fact, Kuh (2009) has defined engagement as the “students’ investment of time and effort in educationally purposeful activities, as well as the institutions’ provision of the conditions that enable such investment.” In this light, Astin's (1984) Student Involvement Theory has emphasized the role of students' physical and psychological energies, while Tinto's (1993) Integration Model has emphasized the role of academic and social integration in the prevention of dropout. In turn, Fredricks and colleagues' (2004) definition of engagement has emphasized its cognitive, behavioral, and emotional aspects. On the other hand, the recent literature has emphasized the holistic and ecological nature of engagement as a construct that is the result of the interplay between socio-cultural context, institutions, and students' experience (Kahu & Nelson, 2018; Lawson & Lawson, 2013).

The theoretical basis of student engagement has become critical in Turkish higher education due to the policy of massification. As a result of this policy, the number of universities and student quotas have rapidly increased. However, this quantitative growth has brought with it concerns about quality. The rapidly increasing number of students, the diversification of student profiles, and the pains of institutional identity formation processes in the newly-established universities are deeply affecting students' university experiences.

The present research is grounded on the premise that student engagement is not the result of academic achievements alone. Rather, student engagement is influenced by a wide range of factors, from the national level to the more detailed level of the student experience itself. The present research aims to demonstrate the manifestation of these factors as concrete factors of challenges or opportunities for student engagement in higher education institutions. Student engagement is normally examined through the lens of Western-centricism and quantitative measurement tools. However, the unique socio-cultural characteristics of the Turkish context, along with the realities of recently founded higher education institutions, necessitate an examination of the subject matter through contextual and qualitative tools of research. Whether students experience the university mainly as a credentialing site or as a space for self-development shapes their engagement. At the same time, how students are engaged in their universities is a critical indicator of higher education’s future, particularly in developing countries like Türkiye. Within this framework, this research aims to bring the concept of a quality student experience to the fore, which has been overshadowed by quantitative growth in the Turkish higher education system. It also examines the current conditions of newly-established universities from the perspective of students. The main research question of the study is defined as follows: “In what ways do students engage in university life at Turkish universities established after the 2000s?”. Focused on this question, the study aims to provide a comprehensive framework by thoroughly examining the interaction between academic, social, and psychological dimensions of student engagement.

Research design This study was conducted as a holistic multiple case study under the qualitative research. The use of a holistic multiple case study allowed for the examination of different student experiences at different universities, using within-case and cross-case analysis (Yin, 2014). This is because, as a study, it sought to offer a wider view than what could be achieved using a single case study. Each university was considered as a unique case in its own context. Then, the similarities and differences across cases were interpreted holistically. Research context and participants The research context was shaped by public universities established after 2000s. They were located in provinces representing different geographical regions and varying levels of socio-economic development, based on the State Planning Organization (2017). The selected universities were Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University (RTEU), Adıyaman University (ADYU), Uşak University (UU), and Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University (AYBU). Their different regional dynamics and city–campus relationships provided a basis for reflecting the diversity of environmental factors that shaped student engagement. The study group consisted of 136 undergraduate students from the four universities. Maximum variation sampling was used to identify participants and to capture experiences across faculties and departments, including engineering, health sciences, education, arts and sciences, and economics and administrative sciences, etc. In total, 38 undergraduate students from RTEU, 36 from ADYU, 34 from UU, and 28 from AYBU were interviewed. Data collection and analysis The data was collected through a semi-structured interview form developed by the researchers in addition to documents and visuals of the pages of the students on the official websites of the university. The researcher visited each campus of the university to conduct face-to-face interviews. The interview questions focused on the academic, social, and psychological engagement process of the students through their experiences and expectations. The research also utilized a second data source, where the textual and visual data collected from the student-related pages of the official websites of the universities was utilized to add credibility to the research through the use of triangulation. For data analysis, interviews were analyzed by using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), while documentary materials were examined through Rose’s (2002) visual analysis framework. The data analysis was conducted in two phases, where the within-case analysis of the data collected from the two universities was conducted, followed by the cross-case analysis of the data to look for similarities and differences between the four cases.

The findings of this study indicate that student engagement has a complex structure composed of six dimensions in universities. As far as the (1) environment of the university is concerned, there has been a significant gap between the expectations of the students when entering the university and what they actually experience. Regarding (2) academic engagement, the students have often complained about their curriculum, which is highly theory-oriented. The university is seen as merely an extension of their secondary education, providing no platform for intellectual growth. (3) Social engagement is also influenced by the students' perception of the lack of a dynamic campus. The students see their campus as lifeless. They point to their student clubs that are formally established but not actively used. In addition, those campuses that are far from the city centers also impact the students negatively in their ability to form relationships. Regarding (4) psychological engagement, the students find themselves with challenges of homesickness and pressure from their peers. The students' psychological well-being is affected negatively due to their anxiety about the future. (5) Economic pressures emerge as an important factor that hinders engagement. In this case, the increasing costs of living have resulted in an unstable environment even in meeting basic needs such as food and shelter. In addition, the state dormitories' physical conditions and the level of satisfaction with the quality and sufficiency of the provided food also have negative effects on the students' well-being. Finally, concerning (6) political engagement, the findings reveal an environment where the level of student voice is restricted. In this case, the students often feel that they are not included in the decision-making process. In summary, the findings indicate that although the students are formally included in the system, they often experience difficulties in becoming real stakeholders of their universities.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. Jossey Bass. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37, 58-71. Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706. Lawson, M., & Lawson, H. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 432–479. Marginson, S. (2022). What is global higher education? Oxford Review of Education, 48(4), 492–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2022.2061438. OECD. (2024). Education at a glance 2024: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19991487. Rose, G. (2002). Visual metholodogies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials. Sage. State Planning Organization (2017). İllerin ve bölgelerin sosyo-ekonomik gelişmişlik sıralaması araştırması SEGE-2017. https://www.kalkinmakutuphanesi.gov.tr/dokuman/illerin-ve-bolgelerin-sosyo-ekonomik-gelismislik-siralamasi-arastirmasi-sege-2017/1970. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.