High Educ

DOI 10.1007/s10734-017-0162-9

Student engagement in academic activities: a social

support perspective

Matthew J. Xerri 1 & Katrina Radford 1 & Kate Shacklock 1

# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Abstract Student engagement in academic activities is a critical factor contributing to the

overall success of students studying in higher education institutions. Yet the factors influencing
student engagement in academic activities are still largely unknown. This study begins to
address this knowledge gap by investigating the influence of student connectedness (relation-
ships with peers and teachers), motivation to study (sense of purpose) and perception of
workload upon student engagement in academic activities. During 2015, a total of 209 students
responded to a survey distributed to first-year undergraduate students enrolled in a university
business school in Queensland, Australia. Structural equation modelling was used to investi-
gate the proposed relationships. Results suggest that student-student (peer) relationships,
teacher-student relationships, and students’ sense of purpose for studying a higher education
degree, were central to student engagement in academic activities. In addition, teacher-student
relationships, and a strong sense of purpose were central to perceptions of student workloads.
Finally, sense of purpose was found to moderate the relationship between both teacher-student
and student-student relationships and also, perceptions of workload and student engagement.
The findings from this study support the importance of developing effective teacher-student
relationships, facilitating positive student-student relationships and communicating a clear
sense of purpose to students, so as to improve their engagement in academic activities and
optimise perceptions of workloads.

Keywords Student engagement . Sense of purpose . Student connectedness . Higher education .

Student workload

* Matthew J. Xerri
[Link]@[Link]

Katrina Radford
[Link]@[Link]
Kate Shacklock
[Link]@[Link]

1
Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus 4222, Australia
 High Educ

Engaging students in academic activities is critical for the overall success of their student
experience (Fredricks et al. 2004; Krause and Coates 2008). The underlying notion of student
engagement is centred on the extent to which students are engaging in academic activities that
have been linked to high-quality student outcomes (Krause and Coates 2008). This includes
engaging students in all activities of student academic life including: class attendance,
assignment completion, interaction with peers and instructors, and enrolment and participation
in extra-curricular activities (Schoffstall et al. 2013).
Understanding the factors that influence student engagement remains important, albeit
previous work by Kahu (2013) suggested that psychosocial influences on student engagement
were predominately linear. In contrast, an earlier qualitative study of university students by
Kember (2004) found more complex pathways and reasons existed. For example, the rela-
tionship between perceived workloads and actual work completed was weakly linked. Instead,
students’ perceptions of workload were more linked to overall student engagement than to the
actual amount of hours and work completed (Kember 2004). Thus, the question remains as to
why students working through the same curriculum/syllabus have different perceptions of
workload (Ruiz-Gallardo et al. 2011).
One explanation may be the student’s purpose for attending university (Lizzio and
Wilson 2010). That is, the motivations to study and engage in university activities. In
this study, we adhere to previous research and conceptualise sense of purpose as the
reason students attribute to being enrolled in higher education studies (Wilson 2009).
However, only anecdotal evidence exists that solidifies the relationship between sense of
purpose and student engagement in academic activities. Therefore, further studies are
needed, and the purpose of our study is to explore possible antecedents of student
engagement and motivation to undertake academic activities. In this paper, we propose
that the differences in perceptions of workload and their impact upon student engage-
ment in academic activities may be caused by first-year students’ sense of purpose in
relation to their university studies. Further, Bryson and Hand (2007) concluded that
students are more likely to be engaged if they are supported by the teaching team they
interact with as part of the learning process. Therefore, we also explore the role of
student relationships with teaching staff, in students’ engagement in academic activities.
In our study, student engagement in academic activities refers to the ability of a student to
manage their time; prepare for, and participate in, classroom activities; interact with teaching
staff and other students; and complete academic activities (Krause and Coates 2008). This
description is in line with the definition of learner engagement used by the Australian National
University Experience Survey (University Experience Survey 2015). Using that definition, the
theoretical lens of social support theory is applied to explore how social support, in the form of
student connectedness (for example., relationships with teachers and other students), influ-
ences students’ sense of purpose, perceptions of workload and engagement in academic
activities.
To the best knowledge of the authors, previous research has not explored the role of sense
of purpose in moderating the relationship between student connectedness and perceptions of
workload at university, particularly when using a social support lens. This moderation is
important to investigate because previous research (James et al. 2010) suggests the role of
student connectedness in strengthening sense of purpose for attending university, and how this
then impacts upon student perceptions of workload, is under-researched. One intention of our
study is to assist higher educational professionals and organisations to enhance the engagement
of students in academic activities. Further, we expect to add to both theoretical and practical
High Educ

understandings, by investigating the following research questions for first-year business

students:

1) What impact do student-student relationships, teacher-student relationships, and sense of

purpose have upon students’ perceptions of workload and engagement in academic
activities?
2) What role does sense of purpose have in moderating the impact of student-student
relationships, and teacher-student relationships upon students’ perceptions of workload
and engagement in academic activities?

Theoretical framework

Social support theorists argue that the provision of psychological and non-psychological
support in the context of an action may improve a person’s ability and desire to engage
in a particular behaviour (House 1971). Psychological support refers to the emotional
and appraisal support (cognition, knowledge, information) provided (Cohen and McKay
1984; Haley et al. 1987), whereas non-psychological support refers to instrumental and
material support (House 1971; Semmer et al. 2008).
In the context of higher education, psychological support (that is, emotional support and
appraisal support) often receives more attention. Perceived emotional support has been found
to provide a buffering effect against the stressful experience of being alone in a new
environment for first-year university undergraduate students (Wilcox et al. 2005). However,
as a student progresses through their first-year, emotional support from friends begins to have
more of an impact upon student outcomes. This is potentially because emotional support from
friends provides a sense of belonging and can also help students face problems (Wilcox et al.
2005). The important role of emotional support was also found by Whiteman et al. (2013),
who conducted a study on the development and implications of peer emotional support for
student service members/veterans and civilian college students. In that study, they found
emotional support from peers to be protective and generally related to positive mental health
and academic adjustment for all undergraduate students (Whiteman et al. 2013).
In addition to emotional support, appraisal support is also an important element of psycho-
logical support. Appraisal support, also called advice, informational support or cognitive
guidance, helps individuals define, understand and cope with problematic events by providing
evaluation and feedback (Cohen and Wills 1985). Previous studies have found that appraisal
support is the most common and frequently-occurring social support found in university students
(Wilcox et al. 2005). Emotional and information support derived from parents were also found to
be the most frequently-reported social support types, and information support was reported more
from teachers (Malecki and Demaray 2003). That is, psychological social support has been
found to improve students’ social skills, academic competences and school adjustment.
In addition to psychological support, non-psychological support is also important, although
material support and instrumental support (tangible help that others have provided) have
received little attention in the education context (Wilcox et al. 2005). Of the studies that have
been conducted, instrumental support has been found to have a positive relationship with
student-student relationships (Malecki and Demaray 2003). In addition, instrumental support
assists students problem solve by providing tangible help or information when needed (Cohen
 High Educ

and Wills 1985; Semmer et al. 2008). Earlier research by Wilcox et al. (2005) also argued that
instrumental support that comes from peers or other students gave students confidence in terms
of their academic work. However, more recent research is needed to examine the influence that
social support has on student outcomes. We examine this influence by investigating the
relationships between sense of purpose, student-student relationships, teacher-student relation-
ships, student engagement, and students’ perceptions of their workload.

Literature review

Student engagement in academic activities

There are many definitions of student engagement that now focus on what students and
institutions can do to foster engagement in academic activities. For example, Kuh et al.
(2008, p. 542) asserted, ‘student engagement represents both the time and energy students
invest in educationally purposeful activities and the effort institutions devote to using effective
educational practices’. Earlier studies on student engagement focussed on what students did to
enhance their own learning, including the time, effort, and commitment to their studies. For
example, Krause et al. (2005) argued that student engagement was decreasing because
Australian full-time university students were spending less time on-campus and in-class,
between 1994 (17.6 h) and 2004 (15.4 h). However, measures such as time spent on activities
are not ideal for capturing student engagement in academic activities. Instead, the parameters
of student engagement have become more complex with other research focussing on belong-
ingness, motivation, and community (Coates 2005). Such research has established significant
relationships between engagement in academic activities and high academic grades, persis-
tence to continue studying on a global scale, and career preparation (Kuh et al. 2008).
However, the rising costs of living and of university degrees in Australia increases pressure
and stress on students to undertake paid work to support themselves while studying, which
increases their overall workloads and detracts from their capacity to fully engage in academic
activities (Jogaratnam and Buchanan 2004).
Research exploring student engagement in academic activities has evolved to include four
different perspectives (Kahu 2013), and has acknowledged the student engagement continuum,
from disengaged to engaged (Bryson and Hand 2007). The first perspective focuses on student
engagement as a behavioural outcome, examining factors influencing student engagement (as
a behavioural outcome). For example, Kuh (2009) found student engagement was a function
of an individual’s time and effort devoted to study. The second perspective acknowledges the
behaviour outcome, but focuses more on the cognitive and affective elements that individuals
experience in being engaged (Fredricks et al. 2004). The third perspective considers the socio-
political context influencing student engagement, such as the institutional culture and wider
contextual issues, for instance the teaching team. For example, Bryson and Hand (2007) found
students were more likely to be engaged if they were supported by a teaching team. The fourth
perspective examines student engagement as a process, with an outcome influenced by student
efforts, motivations and expectations (Kahu 2013).
Our study adopts the third and fourth perspectives and examines, using a social support lens,
the socio-political context (student-student relationships and teacher-student relationships) and
factors associated with the process involved in entering into academic activities (perceptions of
workload and sense of purpose), and their roles in fostering student engagement in academic
High Educ

activities. These factors are particularly important to investigate as student engagement in

academic activities may involve their perceptions of support, purpose and workload. While a
plethora of studies has empirically examined first-year student engagement (Bridgstock et al.
2012; Krause and Coates 2008; Kuh et al. 2008; LaNasa et al. 2007; Mehdinezhad 2011), a
review of the extant literature revealed a lack of research examining the role of first-year student
connectedness (relationships with teaching staff and other students) and perceptions of workload
in fostering student engagement. This lack of research is interesting because a conceptual
framework developed by Kahu (2013) explicitly outlines the links between psychosocial
influences such as connectedness, faculty support, workload, and student engagement. Further,
Mann (2001) argued that student engagement may be enhanced by fostering closer relationships
between teaching staff (faculty) and students, an argument echoed by Kember’s (2004) qualita-
tive study. Therefore, while working within the conceptual framework of engagement developed
by Kahu, we add to the structural model developed by Kember and Leung (2006), by examining
the impact of teacher-student and student-student relationships upon first-year students’ percep-
tions of workload and engagement in academic activities.

Perceived workload

Excessive content in higher education courses may result in students feeling overloaded (Feldon
2007), which may reduce their overall education experience, engagement, and retention. How-
ever, syllabi designed to balance the breadth and depth of the curriculum are important, to
preserve suitable workloads and foster generic skill development (Lizzio et al. 2002). Research
examining perceptions of workload has found only a weak relationship between the number of
hours spent studying and perception of workload (Kember 2004), which suggests that the time
taken may only play a small role in explaining how students perceive their workload.
Yet, Chambers (1992) postulated that an appropriate workload was pivotal to student
learning and studying, because it supports student engagement in academic activities. Later,
Kember (2004) found that the feeling of being overloaded by university workload was a
function of many variables, including the learning environment, teacher-teacher relationships,
student-teacher relationships and the approach a student takes to achieve the learning out-
comes. Thus, perception of workload appears to be a subjective measure of experience for
each student. However, it is important to manage perceptions of workload as they can result in
heightened stress and decreased student engagement (Ruohoniemi and Lindblom-Ylänne
2009). Previous literature suggests studies have not specifically examined the influence of
perceived workload on student engagement in academic activities. This study thus extends that
area of literature and proposes the following hypothesis:

H1: The higher first-year students’ perceptions of workload, the lower their engagement
in academic activities.

Student-student relationships

Previous studies have identified that student-student relationships are effective in reducing
students’ negative perceptions of workload and increasing student engagement (Kember 2004;
Mottet et al. 2005). For example, in a study of first-year university students, Krause et al.
(2005) found that students who interacted with their peers in the learning community
 High Educ

frequently were more engaged and less likely to depart the university environment. Addition-
ally, a qualitative study by Anderson and Carta-Falsa (2002) found building student-student
relationships was important in developing better academic outcomes for students.
Furthermore, Ganotice and King (2014) conducted a study of 1694 Filipino secondary
school students and found that social support from parents, teachers, and peers resulted in
students who were more engaged in academic activities and achieved higher results than
students who did not perceive high levels of social support. Thus, the social support reported
by students in the form of student-student relationships may result from the improved
experience of learning gained through peer relationships (Braxton et al. 2000; Prussia and
Weis 2004;). However, in a study of Australian university students, Jackling and Natoli (2011)
found no significant relationship between student-student relationships and student engage-
ment. Consequently, further research is required to investigate these relationships, as proposed
by the following hypotheses:

H2: Students who report higher student-student relationships will report lower percep-
tions of workload.
H3: Students who report higher student-student relationships will report higher student
engagement in academic activities.

Teacher-student relationships

In addition to student-student relationships, research has also acknowledged the important role
that teacher-student relationships have on student outcomes, such as engagement in academic
activities, perceptions of workload, pro-social behaviours and student learning outcomes
(McGrath and Noble 2010). For example, Mottet et al. (2006) found that teachers who balance
the course workload with their relational teaching style (availability, communication style)
were more likely to have engaged students. In addition, students who perceived their teachers
as accessible and having a sense of ‘immediacy’ (physical and psychological closeness) were
more likely to be engaged in their studies and to report perceptions of lower workload
(Mehrabian 1966; Mottet et al. 2005). Indeed, studies of tertiary schooling have found that
those students who have stronger relationships with their teachers have higher academic
outcomes and self-esteem than those who do not (Nyadanu et al. 2015). It is perhaps not
surprising then, that research has found that the quality of teaching has a significant impact
upon overall engagement of students and perception of workload (Jackling and Natoli 2011).
Consequently, this study proposes the following hypotheses:

H4: The stronger the first-year teacher-student relationships, the lower will be students’
perceptions of workload.
H5: The stronger the first-year teacher-student relationships, the greater will be students’
engagement in academic activities.

Sense of purpose

We conceptualise a sense of purpose as students having clear reasons and career goals
for attending university, which is also related to student success (Wilson 2009). For
High Educ

students, understanding the reason they attend university is important to their univer-
sity studies (for example, maintaining motivation to persistently engage in academic
activities) (Wintre and Yaffe 2000). The importance and value that sense of purpose
has in student engagement, teacher-student relationships, student-student relationships,
and workload, are highlighted by James et al. (2010) and Lizzio and Wilson (2010).
In a study of Australian universities, Lizzio and Wilson (2010) found that explicitly
stating the reason for studying a particular course and communicating how the course
fits into a degree/program, is critical to overall student success and student satisfac-
tion. This may be due to the motivation students have towards a particular career goal
and the impact that such a goal has upon student engagement in academic activities
(Kember et al. 2010).
However, while direct relationships with sense of purpose have been established in
one study, the interactions with sense of purpose have not been investigated. Previous
research has only indicated that students with a clear sense of purpose for studying at
university tend to persist with their studies (Gerdes and Mallinckrodt 1994) and
perceive lower levels of university workload (Pitkethly and Prosser 2001). This study
argues that if students have a clear sense of why they are studying at university, than
that is likely to influence their intentions and desire to engage with teachers, students,
and how they perceive their workload. Utilising the underlying notions of social
support theory, we contend that the teaching team can support students by
communicating a clear sense of purpose for studying at university, and this vision
can also be reinforced by student peers. As such, it is expected that student
connectedness will interact with student sense of purpose for studying the impact
upon their perceived workload. However, research was not found that examined how
sense of purpose may moderate the relationship between student connectedness and
perceptions of workload. Even so, there is qualitative research indicating that such a
relationship may exist. Notably, Kember (2004) suggested that students are more
likely to perceive a lower workload when, among other reasons, supportive teacher-
student relationships, student-student relationships, and key concepts and understand-
ing are promoted. We propose that these relationships may be explained by students’
perceptions of support and connectedness experienced as they engage in academic
activities. Therefore, this study extends the literature by examining the following:

H6: The stronger the students’ sense of purpose, the lower their perceptions of
workload.
H7a: Students’ sense of purpose will moderate the association between student-student
relationships and student perceptions of workload.
H7b: Students’ sense of purpose will moderate the association between teacher-student
relationships and student perceptions of workload.

Thus far, this paper has theorised that student engagement in academic activities can be
influenced by the social support (both psychological and non-psychological) provided through
teacher-student relationships and student-student relationships, and that these relationships
should influence student perceptions of workload and engagement in academic activities. In
addition, it is argued that these relationships are moderated by the sense of purpose students
have, or their reason for attending university. Our proposed conceptual framework is illustrated
in Fig. 1 below.
 High Educ

Theoretical framework Conceptual model

Sense of
purpose First in-
Gender Family
Teacher-student
relaonships

Social Support
Perceived Student
Theory
workload engagement

Student-student
relaonships

Fig. 1 Conceptual model: the role of sense of purpose in moderating social support relationships and perceived
workload, and their impact upon student engagement

Methods

Participants

Invitations were sent to all first-year students from a large business faculty in an Australian
university located in Queensland. To be included, participants must have been in their first year
of study in their program and be enrolled in a first-year business course. The total sample pool
was 712 students. A total of 210 students (29.5% response rate) completed the survey
distributed to them electronically via course announcements.
After conducting descriptive analyses and checking statistical assumptions, 13 cases were
found to be outliers and were removed from the sample to improve normality. This left a total
sample of 197 participants. Of these participants, 119 (60.4%) were female and 79 (39.6%)
were male. The majority of participants was less than 21 years old (117 or 59.4%), 71
participants (36%) were aged 21–35, eight participants (4.1%) were 36–50, and one participant
(0.5%) was older than 50 years. Of all the participants, 37.1% (73) were the first in their family
to attend university.

Demographics

We controlled for two possible factors that could reasonably influence student engagement:
gender (Carini et al. 2006) and being first-in-family to attend university (Southgate et al.
2014). These variables were measured using a binary response to the questions: ‘What is your
gender?’ (Male or Female), and ‘Are you the first in your immediate family to attend
university?” (Yes or No).

Measures

All scales used were previously validated and measured on a six-point Likert-type scale from
‘1’ = strongly disagree to ‘6’ = strongly agree.
High Educ

Student-student relationships were measured using four items developed by Kember and
Leung (2006), which included two sub-scales: relationship with other students and cooperative
learning. The scale resulted in acceptable average variance extracted (AVE) (.607) and
composite reliability (.901). A sample item included, ‘My peers and I have developed a strong
sense of working together’.
Sense of Purpose included five items measuring the reasons why students were studying
their degree. These items included, ‘I want to get excellent grades to benefit my future’. This
scale was developed from previous qualitative research that found these as fundamental
reasons for studying at university (Robertson and Blackler 2006; Ross et al. 2014).
Teacher-student relationships (7-items) were also measured using scales developed by
Kember and Leung (2006), and comprised three sub-scales: teacher-student interaction,
feedback to assist learning, and assistance from teaching staff. The scale resulted in acceptable
AVE of 0.575 and a composite reliability of 0.890. A sample item was, ‘There is a close
relationship between teaching staff and students’.
There were also two control variables: First-in-family, representing those students who
were the first members of their families to attend university, and gender, representing whether
students were male or female.

Dependent variables

Perceptions of workload was measured using 5-items from Hart and Staveland’s (1988) Task-
Load Index. The Task-Load Index was modified by removing one item that referred to work
tasks being physically demanding, which is not suited for undergraduate business students.
The scale had an AVE of .505 and a composite reliability of .750, and an example item was:
‘On average, my university work tasks are mentally demanding’.
Student engagement in academic activities was measured using the academic engagement
scale (8-items) developed by Krause and Coates (2008). The scale had an acceptable AVE
(.535) and composite reliability (.771). A sample item included, ‘I regularly seek advice and
help from teaching staff’. This scale was selected because our study explored the engagement
students had in academic activities surrounding their studies.

Data analysis and model estimation

Data were analysed using two statistical programs: Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS) v.22 and Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) v.22 software. Non response bias
was tested using trend analysis (Armstrong and Overton 1977). The trend analysis approach
assumes that late responders are similar to non-responders and has been used in the literature
commonly to test non-response bias (Harrison 2009). This analysis found no significant
differences between the responses received from early and late responders. Consequently,
further analyses to test the hypotheses were performed.
A covariance-based latent variable structural equation model was developed, adhering
to the two step approach prescribed by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). To test for
interactions, a process proposed by Hopwood (2007) and applied by Karimi et al.
(2014) was used. Statistical tests of univariate normality revealed skewness and kurtosis
for each construct fell below 1.96. In addition, Mardia’s (1970, 1974) normalised
estimate of multivariate kurtosis was 5.24, which is close to the cut-off value of 5 and
therefore was deemed acceptable in this study (Bentler 2005).
 High Educ

Table 1 Results of confirmatory factor analysis - examining goodness-of-fit

CMIN/ CFI TLI RMSEA

DF

Hypothesised measurement model 2.51 0.81 0.78 0.09

Modified measurement model 1.89 0.91 0.90 0.07
Model 1: Sense of purpose moderates student-student and teacher-student 1.73 0.91 0.90 0.06
relationships onto perceived workload
Model 2: Sense of purpose only moderates teacher-student relationships to 1.75 0.92 0.90 0.06
perceived workload
Model 3: Structural model, no moderation 1.78 .092 0.91 0.06
Model 4: Adds common latent factor to respecified measurement model 1.88 0.92 0.90 0.07

*Common variance was 8.41%

To examine reliability and validity, standardised factor loadings were tested and they
exceeded 0.7, except for five items, but each of those was greater than 0.5. There is also
support for convergent validity with AVEs (Hair et al. 2010) and composite reliabilities
(Raykov 1997) exceeding 0.5 and 0.7 respectively (Kline 2011). The square root of the
AVE for each construct is greater than any other correlation (see Tables 1 and 2), which
provides support for discriminant validity (Hair et al. 2010).

Factor analysis

Prior to the confirmatory factor analysis, a principal component analysis with a varimax
rotation was conducted including each of the measures in this study. The Kaiser-Meyer Olkin
measure of sampling adequacy was 0.851, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (chi
square = 4238.14, p < .001, df = 561). The results from the factor analysis revealed that one
sense of purpose item did not load onto the respective construct, so it was removed from the
analysis.
The hypothesised measurement model provided a poor fit to the data (see Table 3)
(CMIN/DF = 2.51, RMSEA = 0.09, CFI = 0.81 and TLI = 0.78). Two items were removed from
the Task-Load Index (due to low square-multiple correlations = .103 and .133). Three items were
also removed from the engagement scale and two items from the teacher-student relationships
scale due to high standardised residual covariances. High modification indices (MI = 39.739,
0.443) indicated a potential error covariance between two student-student relationship items, ‘I
have frequently discussed ideas from other courses with other students out of class’ and ‘I have
found that discussing course material with other students outside of classes has helped me reach
an understanding’, and considering these items express similar meanings (Byrne 2010), the error
covariance was estimated. The measurement model modifications resulted in a reasonable model
fit (CMIN/DF = 1.89, RMSEA = 0.07, CFI = 0.91 and TLI = 0.90).
Four structural models were tested. Model 1 included only moderation between student-
student relationships and perceived workload, Model 2 included only moderation between
teacher-student relationships and perceived workload, and Model 3 has no moderation. From
the confirmatory factor analysis, it was identified that Model 1 has a similar model-fit
compared to Models 2 and 3 (see Table 1), and a chi square difference test depicted the
models are also statistically distinct. Model 4 added a common latent factor to the modified
measurement model. Model 4 adequately fits the data and a common variance of 8.41% was
identified, and as such common method variance was low and not a concern in this study.
High Educ

Table 2 Correlations matrix, mean, and standard deviations

Variables Mean# SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Gender - - 1
2. First-in-family - - −.00 1
3. Student engagement 4.55 .90 −.02 .01 (.731)
4. Perceived workload 3.78 .94 −.03 −.01 −.29** (.711)
5. Sense of purpose 4.71 .93 −.03 −.01 .34** −.18* (.753)
6. Student-student relationships 4.12 1.10 −.03 .04 .40** .00 .15* (.779)
7. Teacher-student relationships 4.50 .8 .06 −.05 −.56** −.26** .26** .33** (.758)
#
Scale ranges from 1 = strongly disagree, to 6 = strongly agree.
Note: SD = Standard deviation; Diagonal elements in the parentheses are the square roots of the average variance
extracted (AVE).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Results

Test of study hypotheses

Descriptive statistics and correlations for each construct are shown in Table 2, and the
standardised parameter estimates are shown in Table 2. Structural Equation Modelling
(SEM) analyses depict that neither of the control variables was significantly related to student
engagement in academic activities. As such, the control variables were not further considered.
Most hypotheses were supported, except hypotheses 2 and 7a (See Fig. 2). In particular,
teacher-student relationships (β = −.331, p < .001) and sense of purpose (β = −.221, p < .05)
had significant negative effects on student perceived workload. Also, teacher-student relation-
ships (β = .484, p < .001), student-student relationships (β = .321, p < .001), and perceived
workload (β = −.221, p < .05) each had a significant effect on student engagement in academic
activities. Hypothesis 7b was supported because sense of purpose moderated the relationship
of teacher-student relationships (β = −.240, p < .01) onto perceived workload.

Table 3 SEM results for testing hypotheses

Variables Perceived workload Student engagement

β s.e. β s.e.

Control
Gender −.05 .10
First-in-family .04 .10
Predictor
Perceived workload −.24** .10
Student-student relationships .13 .07 .32*** .08
Teacher-student r’ships −.33*** .09 .48*** .09
Sense of purpose −.22* .15
Sense of purpose X student-student relationships .15 .05
Sense of purpose X teacher-student relationships −.24** .05
R2 19.5% 57.8%

Note: s.e. = standard error

***. Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level; **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level; *. Correlation is
significant at the 0.05 level
 High Educ

Teacher-
student
relationship
(TSR) -.331***
.484***

Perceived
-.240** workload
Purpose x TSR
R2 = 19.5%

.129
Student-
student
relationships .321***
(SSR)
-.236**

.147

Purpose x SSR
Student
-.221* Engagement
R2 = 57.8%

Sense of
purpose

Notes:
*p < .05, **p <.01, ***p < .001.
SSR = student-teacher relationships; TSR = teacher-student relationships; Purpose = sense of purpose.
Fig. 2 Standardised structural model results. Notes: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. SSR = student-teacher
relationships; TSR = teacher-student relationships; Purpose = sense of purpose

The nature of the moderation is graphically represented in Fig. 3, which depicts that sense
of purpose reduces the effect of teacher-student relationships on perceived workload. Also
while perceived workload reduces more from low to high teacher-student relationships, when
sense of purpose is high, perceived workload remains greater than when sense of purpose is
low (see Fig. 3). Such a finding provides some support that if sense of purpose is low, the
negative impact of teacher-student relationships upon perceived workload is reduced.

Discussion

This study investigated the role that student-student relationships, teacher-student relation-
ships, and sense of purpose have on first-year students’ perceptions of workload and
High Educ

Fig. 3 The moderating role of student sense of purpose between teacher-student relationships and student
workload

engagement in academic activities. We found that teacher-student relationships had a signif-

icant negative effect on perceptions of workload, which were reported as higher when teacher-
student relationships were poor. This finding is consistent with previous research by Kember
(2004); Malecki and Demaray (2003) and, McGrath and Noble (2010). One possible reason
for this could be that students with good teacher relationships ask more questions, obtain more
feedback, and gain clarification on reducing the workload and providing study structure.
Simultaneously, teachers may inadvertently play a role in reducing anxieties about student
workload by having good working relationships with their students. The reason that our
finding is important is because it means better teacher-student relationships lead to lower
perceptions of workload, which then leads to higher student engagement in academic activ-
ities. However, further investigations of the emotional and relational impact of teacher-student
relationships are required to establish which specific elements of the teacher-student relation-
ship assist with improving perceptions of workload.
In addition to influencing perceptions of workload, teacher-student relationships also had a
positive impact upon student engagement. Specifically, our study found that when teacher-
student relationships were stronger, student engagement in academic activities was reported to
be higher than when these relationships were weaker. This finding is in line with previous
research by Nyadanu et al. (2015), and Jackling and Natoli (2011), who found teacher-student
relationships to be significantly related to student engagement. Possible reasons for this finding
include that those teachers with strong teacher-student relationships are more highly invested
in their students, and employ strategies that engage students in deeper learning approaches,
resulting in improved student engagement in academic activities. However, further investiga-
tion with diverse types of students is required, to explore the outcomes of teacher-student
relationships and approaches to cultivating strong teacher-student relationships.
No significant relationship was found between student-student relationships and percep-
tions of workload. That is, student-student relationships did not impact upon students’
perceptions of workload. This was surprising given that previous studies by Kember (2004)
 High Educ

and Mottet et al. (2005) concluded that these relationships were effective in reducing students’
negative perceptions of workload. One possible reason for this difference could be the sample
size or timing of the study. To explain, this study was conducted at the end of the second
semester (courses are offered during two semesters per year, one in the first half and the other
in the second half of each calendar year), when students may be tired from their year of
studying at university level. Also, the survey was only offered electronically, and as a result,
some students may not have responded to the survey as they were busy preparing for exams, or
would have preferred ‘hard copy’ surveys. Alternatively, our result may identify a shift in the
value that student-student relationships have on an individual’s perceptions of workloads due
to technological influences, changes to workload expectations, and/or the reduction in time
that university students spend on campus (Krause et al. 2005). Consequently, further research
is necessary to investigate the role that student-students relationships may have in student
perceptions of their university studies.
As expected though, in our study student-student relationships were significant in improv-
ing student engagement. This finding is in line with previous studies by Kember (2004);
McGrath and Noble (2010); and Anderson and Carta-Falsa (2002). Consequently, our study
provides further support for creating a learning community that is developed between students
to further foster student engagement in academic activities.
Having a sense of purpose was found to impact students’ perceptions of workload and
engagement in academic activities. This finding is in line with previous research by Wilson
(2009), who found that understanding the reason/goal for attending university was important
for fostering positive relationships with other students and teachers, and effectively managing
perceived workloads. Furthermore, our finding supports the need to communicate and help
students understand the link between their chosen course/program objectives and their overall
career goals, as suggested by Lizzio and Wilson (2010) and James et al. (2010). However,
understanding how these messages are best communicated remains under-researched. Conse-
quently, further research is required in this area.
While this was the first study of its kind to combine these particular variables and look at
the influence they have upon student perceptions of engagement and workload, it is not
without its limitations. First, this study is limited by the sample obtained: cross-sectional data
was obtained from only one university in one state in Australia. Care therefore should be taken
when generalising these results to other settings and organisations. Second, the results apply to
university business students and the results may differ in other disciplines. Further research is
needed to confirm, or otherwise, our findings in different contexts.

Conclusion

Within the context of rising costs of tertiary education, which in most western countries is
heavily funded by or at least subsidised by the public purse, our study has examined ways to
improve potential outcomes by examining the role that students and teachers can play in
student success. One key implication of our findings is based on the notion that teacher-student
relationships influence students’ perceptions of workload and student engagement in academic
activities. Notably, our results suggest that when students have a strong sense of purpose for
why they are studying, then teacher-student relationships can help reduce students’ perceptions
of workload even more. Importantly, we know that the consequence of that reduction is the
more likely continuation of the student at the university and more likely success in completing
High Educ

the degree program. Further, we know from previous research that enhancing teacher-student
relationships is possible. In conclusion, the findings from our study support the need for
developing effective teacher-student relationships, encouraging positive student-student rela-
tionships and communicating a clear sense of purpose to students, in order to improve student
engagement and minimise their perceptions of high workloads. This combination will posi-
tively influence student engagement in academic activities.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Mr. Christopher Graham, Ms.
Amanda Campbell, the grant approvers and first-year business course convenors (subject/course managers).
Funding was received from the university teaching and learning grant body to conduct this research during 2015.

References

Anderson, L. E., & Carta-Falsa, J. (2002). Factors that make faculty and student relationships effective. College
Teaching, 50(4), 134–138.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended
two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Armstrong, J., & Overton, T. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing
Research, 14, 396–402.
Bentler, P. M. (2005). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino: Multivariate Software.
Braxton, J. M., Milem, J. F., & Sullivan, A. S. (2000). The influence of active learning on the college student
departure process: Toward a revision of Tinto's theory. Journal of Higher Education, 71(5), 569–590.
Bridgstock, R. S., Thomas, A., Lyons, K., Carr, L., & Zelenko, O. (2012). Putting the cart before the horse?
Driving student engagement through first year career identity development in a large multidisciplinary
creative industries cohort. Paper presented at the First Year in Higher Education Conference, Sofitel
Brisbane Central, Brisbane, QLD.
Bryson, C., & Hand, L. (2007). The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 44(4), 349–362.
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming
(2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages.
Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–32.
Chambers, E. (1992). Work-load and the quality of student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 17(2), 141–
153.
Coates, H. (2005). The value of student engagement for higher education quality assurance. Quality in Higher
Education, 11(1), 25–36.
Cohen, S., & McKay, G. (1984). Social support, stress and the buffering hypothesis: A theoretical analysis.
Handbook of Psychology and Health, 4, 253–267.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin,
98(2), 310–357.
Feldon, D. F. (2007). Cognitive load and classroom teaching: The double-edged sword of automaticity.
Educational Psychologist, 42(3), 123–137.
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), 59–109.
Ganotice Jr., F. A., & King, R. B. (2014). Social influences on students’ academic engagement and science
achievement. Psychological Studies, 59(1), 30–35.
Gerdes, H., & Mallinckrodt, B. (1994). Emotional, social, and academic adjustment of college students: A
longitudinal study of retention. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72(3), 281–288.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global
perspective. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.
Haley, W. E., Levine, E. G., Brown, S. L., & Bartolucci, A. A. (1987). Stress, appraisal, coping, and social
support as predictors of adaptational outcome among dementia caregivers. Psychology and Aging, 2(4),
323–330.
Harrison, J. L. (2009). Untangling the value of information scope: An investigation in retail pharmacies. Journal
of Management & Organization, 15(4), 470–485.
 High Educ

Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task load Index): Results of empirical and
theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139–183.
Hopwood, C. J. (2007). Moderation and mediation in structural equation modeling: Applications for early
intervention research. Journal of Early Intervention, 29(3), 262–272.
House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321–
339.
Jackling, B., & Natoli, R. (2011). Student engagement and departure intention: An Australian university
perspective. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 35(4), 561–579.
James, R., Krause, K.-L., & Jennings, C. (2010). The first year experience in Australian universities: Findings
from 1994 to 2009. Melbourne: Centre for Studies in Higher Education.
Jogaratnam, G., & Buchanan, P. (2004). Balancing the demands of school and work: Stress and employed
hospitality students. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(4), 237–245.
Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758–
773.
Karimi, L., Leggat, S. G., Donohue, L., Farrell, G., & Couper, G. E. (2014). Emotional rescue: The role of
emotional intelligence and emotional labour on well-being and job-stress among community nurses. Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 70(1), 176–186.
Kember, D. (2004). Interpreting student workload and the factors which shape students' perceptions of their
workload. Studies in Higher Education, 29(2), 165–184.
Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2006). Characterising a teaching and learning environment conducive to making
demands on students while not making their workload excessive. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 185–
198.
Kember, D., Ho, A., & Hong, C. (2010). Characterising a teaching and learning environment capable of
motivating student learning. Learning Environments Research, 13(1), 43–57.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
Krause, K. L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 33(5), 493–505.
Krause, K. L., Hartley, R., James, R., & McInnis, C. (2005). The first year experience in Australian universities:
Findings from a decade of national studies. Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education,
University of Melbourne.
Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student
engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540–563.
Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of
College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706.
LaNasa, S. M., Olson, E., & Alleman, N. (2007). The impact of on-campus student growth on first-year student
engagement and success. Research in Higher Education, 48(8), 941–966.
Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2010). Strengthening commencing students’ sense of purpose: Integrating theory and
practice. Paper presented ate the 13th Pacific Rim First Year in Higher Education Conference, Adelaide:
Australia.
Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students' perceptions of the learning
environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher
Education, 27(1), 27–52.
Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2003). What type of support do they need? Investigating student adjustment
as related to emotional, informational, appraisal, and instrumental support. School Psychology Quarterly,
18(3), 231–252.
Mann, S. J. (2001). Alternative perspectives on the student experience: Alienation and engagement. Studies in
Higher Education, 26(1), 7–19.
Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57, 519–
530.
Mardia, K. V. (1974). Applications of some measures of multivaraite skewness and kurtosis in testing normality
and robustness studies. Sankhya, B36, 115–128.
McGrath, H., & Noble, T. (2010). Supporting positive pupil relationships: Research to practice. Educational and
Child Psychology, 27(1), 82–94.
Mehdinezhad, V. (2011). First year students' engagement at the university. International Online Journal of
Educational Sciences, 3(1), 47–66.
Mehrabian, A. (1966). Immediacy: An indicator of attitudes in linguistic communication. Journal of Personality,
34(1), 26–34.
Mottet, T. P., Parker-Raley, J., Cunningham, C., & Beebe, S. A. (2005). The relationships between teacher
nonverbal immediacy and student course workload and teacher availability expectations. Communication
Research Reports, 22(4), 275–282.
High Educ

Mottet, T. P., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of instructional communication:
Rhetorical and relational perspectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Nyadanu, S. D., Garglo, M. Y., Adampah, T., & Garglo, R. L. (2015). The impact of lecturer-student relationship
on self-esteem and academic performance at higher education. Journal of Social Science Studies, 2(1), 264–
281.
Pitkethly, A., & Prosser, M. (2001). The first year experience project: A model for university-wide change.
Higher Education Research and Development, 20(2), 185–198.
Prussia, G. E., & Weis, W. L. (2004). Experiential learning effects on retention: Results from a required MBA
course. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 5(4), 397–407.
Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological
Measurement, 21(2), 173–184.
Robertson, J., & Blackler, G. (2006). Students' experiences of learning in a research environment. Higher
Education Research & Development, 25(3), 215–229.
Ross, J., Head, K., King, L., Perry, P. M., & Smith, S. (2014). The personal development tutor role: An
exploration of student and lecturer experiences and perceptions of that relationship. Nurse Education
Today, 34(9), 1207–1213.
Ruiz-Gallardo, J.-R., Castaño, S., Gómez-Alday, J. J., & Valdés, A. (2011). Assessing student workload in
problem based learning: Relationships among teaching method, student workload and achievement. A case
study in natural Sciences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(3), 619–627.
Ruohoniemi, M., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2009). Students' experiences concerning course workload and factors
enhancing and impeding their learning–a useful resource for quality enhancement in teaching and curriculum
planning. International Journal for Academic Development, 14(1), 69–81.
Schoffstall, D. G., Arendt, S. W., & Brown, E. A. (2013). Academic engagement of hospitality students. Journal
of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 13, 141–153.
Semmer, N. K., Elfering, A., Jacobshagen, N., Perrot, T., Beehr, T. A., & Boos, N. (2008). The emotional
meaning of instrumental social support. International Journal of Stress Management, 15(3), 235–251.
Southgate, E., Douglas, H., Scevak, J., Macqueen, S., Rubin, M., & Lindell, C. (2014). The academic outcomes
of first-in-family in an Australian university: An exploratory study. International Studies in Widening
Participation, 1(2), 31–45.
University Experience Survey (2015). 2014 University Experience Survey National Report: March 2015.
Retrieved 6/6/16 at: [Link]
experience-survey-national-report/ues14_report_final_access2a.pdf?sfvrsn=4
Whiteman, S. D., Barry, A. E., Mroczek, D. K., & MacDermid Wadsworth, S. (2013). The development and
implications of peer emotional support for student service members/veterans and civilian college students.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(2), 265–278.
Wilcox, P., Winn, S., & Fyvie-Gauld, M. (2005). ‘it was nothing to do with the university, it was just the people’:
The role of social support in the first-year experience of higher education. Studies in Higher Education,
30(6), 707–722.
Wilson, K. (2009). Success in first year: the impact of institutional, programmatic and personal interventions on
an effective and sustainable first-year student experience. Paper presented at the 12th Pacific Rim First Year
in Higher Education Conference - Preparing for tomorrow today: The First Year Experience as foundation.,
Queensland, Australia Available at [Link]/past_papers/papers09/content/html/[Link]
Wintre, M. G., & Yaffe, M. (2000). First-year students’ adjustment to university life as a function of relationships
with parents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15(1), 9–37.