Student Engagement as a concept was first put forwarded in the year 1984 by Alexander Astin as “Student involvement”.

Student engagement with time has gained a lot of importance and attention becoming the main focus of the educational system as well as various institutions providing higher education.

A large amount of students get attracted towards institutions practicing student engagement by prioritizing students. This helps them in attracting and retaining existing talent in their institutions. Now a day’s measuring the effect of student engagement and student’s performance has become a challenging job as far as the question of measuring holistic learning is concerned. There have been a lot of studies on student involvement, engagement etc but the extent to which engagement is important and has a direct or indirect effect on the performance of the student in measurable terms is lacking. Also, studies directly highlighting the benchmarks of National survey of student engagement and their linkages would be a new contribution to the literature. The universities practicing engagement are looking for the techniques and approaches effective measurement of the effect of student engagement on student’s performance. (B. Jean Mandernach, 2015)

Engagement was explained as the amount of time a student devotes being involved in the activities of the institute during his entire course. This involvement of the student in the university leads into holistic learning of the student and also gets reflected in the grade points of the student at the end of the course. (Kuh, 2003) The present literature in this area accredited the interest of the scholars as well as the studies towards the new categorization of engagement which now is focuses on cognitive, behavioral and emotional growth of the student.

These are the efforts that are required to put in both from the side of the faculties as well as the staff for achieving this motive of holistic development of the student making them successful superman’s in the future with the help of student engagement. Therefore, the faculties and students both are responsible for incorporating the practice of engagement in their curriculum as well as culture. The process of engagement follows a feedback loops which ensures the successful implementation and development of the student in the university. That is how it can be said that it is a well prepared, systematic and complete process which follows a result oriented approach.

Engagement includes both the activities conducted inside as well as outside the college campus. The environment in which all the systems and institutions function is dynamic in nature therefore; an up gradation in the society as well as the education and teaching standards is a must. The lack of student’s say in this matter has resulted into a gap in the literature towards the dearth of efforts put forth in restraining the problem. The point of considering student’s view in this regard is essential; therefore, this paper makes an attempt by bringing the faculty as well as the student’s perception with the help of the student’s responses and expert interview by suggesting measures to curb the problem at hand. (Taylor, L. & Parsons, J. 2011, Vicki Trowler, 2010)

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

The literature highlights a variety of arguments, outlook, observations and ideas when it comes to the concept of student engagement. Student engagement functions like any other system that has various subsystems, having its merits and demerits. Consequently, a variety of thoughts and assumptions exist in the literature regarding the implementation, benefits and outcomes of practicing engagement in the institutions on a regular basis. Differences are found in this regard in the perception of the student’s and that of the faculty members which needs to be addressed and resolved. Therefore, the researcher conducted a survey after going through the past international and national researches in this area which assisted to some extent in gaining important insights and gap persisting needing to be addressed for the betterment of the education system and the society as a whole. A comprehensive, complete, rigorous and meticulous review of the literature was carried out by the researcher based on the dimensions defined by the National Survey of Student engagement and was further categorized as follows:

Review of the literature On the Basis of the Input variables:

Carini and Kuh (2004) have added to the literature by setting up linkages, associations and relationships between the variables of student engagement and student’s performance. Connell and Klem (2004) have highlighted the contribution of teachers in supporting and enhancing the performance of the student.

Kuh and Cruce (2008) have purposefully brought into consideration the impact of the proper execution of student engagement on student’s outcomes with special reference to institutions providing higher educational courses.

Ward (2009) in the study named “Exploring the Relationship between Student Engagement and Common Business Knowledge: A Pilot Study” has compared the benchmarks of National survey of student engagement using multi field test.

The findings of the study suggested that under the artificial environment the relationship between the variables turn positive towards each other. The sample size adopted for the study was 41 consisting of researchers giving a highly positive result.

Taylor and Parsons (2011) explained how engagement can be enhanced and improved in the universities supporting higher education.

Inceoglu (2011) has focused upon the holistic development, learning and the work completed by the student.

Bótas, Velden, Naidoo, Lowe and Pool (2012) acknowledged the important of educational standards and quality that the university attempts to enhance the experience of the student making it to be the best.

Fredricks, McColskey (2012), Gunuc (2014) and Mandernach (2015) have explained about the student outcomes and ways to measure the student’s performance.

Review of Literature On the Basis of the Environmental Variables:

Skinner and Belmont (1993) explained about the behavior of the faculty with the student inside the classroom that leaves an impact on the performance of the student. The impact can be either positive or negative in nature.

Rhoades (2012) stated that the experience with the faculty affects the performance and learning of the student.

Atnip (2015) in his study “Assessing the Relationship between Student and Faculty Perceptions of Student Engagement at Central Mountain College” has highlighted the comparison between teachers and the students. The findings of the study showed a low participation of the students in the classroom. The study suggested that more is the amount of interaction between the student and the faculty, better will be the performance of the students.

Review of Literature On the Basis of the Output Variables:

Kuh and Bridges (2006) highlighted the factors that affected the academic achievement and performance of the students in the institutions.

Korobova (2012) conducted a survey in which the prime focus was the student satisfaction, outcomes and student involvement in which a comparison was made between the three variables. For better results he investigated many international as well as national studies.

It can be seen from the above review of the literature that many of the researchers have talked about student engagement but none of them have thrown light of the associations, linkages and connections between the Engagement dimensions defined by National survey of student engagement.

Hence, this paper makes an attempt to present a comprehensive image of the current situations and the effect, impact, relationship and outcomes of practicing student engagement in the universities on the student’s academic and holistic development. The benchmarks that are propounded by the National survey of student engagement have yet not been discussed and highlighted in the past literatures. Amongst the most rarely discussed and highlighted benchmarks are learning with the peers and campus environment. These factors being amongst the most essential variables needs to be discussed and brought in front of the research committees being a part of the researches. Therefore, efforts have been made by the researcher through the medium of this paper to bridge the gap between the old and the latest variables and issues that play a vital role and effect the performance of the students of the country.

Division of the Literature Based on National Survey of Student’s Engagement Benchmarks:

The National survey of student engagement in the year 2000 categorized Student Engagement into five different benchmarks. These were further modified as per the need of the hour in the year 2013. These five benchmarks were further segregated into ten engagement indicators. These benchmarks are considered valuable because they helped in the measurement of the student’s performance at the end of the course. There is total number of Forty- seven survey items that were proposed out of which six are called as the High-Impact Practices.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

This paper is descriptive in nature. The study is based in Agra and Mathura during the period October- March 2017. The research tool used was questionnaires which was a structured questionnaire consisting of both close as well as open ended questions. The sample size for the study was determined to be 95 in number. The target respondents were college students of graduate and post graduate level. The experts in the area and the faculty members were interviewed which helped in gaining insights for analyzing the variables and factors affecting student’s performance from a 360 degree point of view and a system dynamics model was constructed out of the results and responses derived from the survey. The secondary sources referred for the study were journals, newspapers, internet etc. The information gathered from the respondents was properly checked for the second time, coded, decoded and fed into SPSS for analyzing the data and a model was created using software like Stella. The hypotheses’ testing was done using correlation and regression analysis. The open ended responses were further analyzed for clear depiction after the content analysis using system dynamics. A causal loop and a stock flow diagram were developed by the researcher for achievement of the objectives of the paper.

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS:

Quantitative data of the student’s responses:

The table1- table 10 interprets the responses of the students of the colleges of Agra and Mathura region. The closed ended questions were decoded and analyzed according to the Five NSSE benchmarks highlighting the student’s perception and institutional efforts regarding the issue of student’s performance and holistic learning. Correlation analysis was used for testing whether there is any relationship between the variables or not. A collective table of each is shown below which illustrates the effect or impact of each dimension of student engagement on the student’s performance. The performance of the students can be measured from their Academic success or Grade points (CGPA).

Effect of all dimensions of student engagement on student’s performance (college 1 of Agra)

Table 1 : Correlations

		LP	EF	AC	CE	P
LP	Pearson Correlation	1	.356^*	.478^**	.558^**	.706^**
	Sig. (2-tailed)		.011	.000	.000	.001
	N	50	50	50	50	50
EF	Pearson Correlation	.356^*	1	.426^**	.340^*	.600^**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.011		.002	.016	.004
	N	50	50	50	50	50
AC	Pearson Correlation	.478^**	.426^**	1	.608^**	.718^**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000	.002		.000	.000
	N	50	50	50	50	50
CE	Pearson Correlation	.558^**	.340^*	.608^**	1	.545^**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000	.016	.000		.001
	N	50	50	50	50	50
P	Pearson Correlation	.466^**	.400^**	.618^**	.445^**	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.001	.004	.000	.001
	N	50	50	50	50	50

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

As it can be seen in the table above the value of each variable with performance is more than .5 which means that the null hypotheses 1 are rejected. The variables having more than .5 have good correlation with performance and the variables having more than .7 have high correlation.

Table 3: Model summary

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.648^a	.420	.368	.50276
A. Predictors: (Constant), CE, EF, LP, AC

TABLE 4: ANOVA^B

Model		Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	8.225	4	2.056	8.135	.000^a
	Residual	11.375	45	.253
	Total	19.600	49
A. Predictors: (Constant), CE, EF, LP, AC
B. Dependent Variable: P

TABLE 5: COEFFICIENTS^A

Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	T	Sig.
Model		B	Std. Error	Beta	T	Sig.
1	(Constant)	-.791	.608		-1.301	.200
	Learning with the Peers	.211	.145	.204	1.452	.001
	Experience with the Faculty	.194	.164	.151	1.183	.004
	Academic Challenge	.916	.328	.423	2.787	.000
	Campus Environment	.028	.186	.023	.148	.001

A. Dependent Variable: Performance

The above tables illustrate that the hypotheses “Input Variables and Performance is Independent of each other” and “Environment Variables and Performance are Independent of each other” are not accepted because of the value of R being less than 2. This shows that their does exist a relationship between LP, EF, AC, CE and Performance.

(COLLEGE 2 Of MATHURA)

EFFECT OF ALL THE VARIABLES ON STUDENT’S PERFORMANCE:

TABLE 6 : CORRELATIONS

		LP	EF	AC	CE	P
LP	Pearson Correlation	1	.438^**	.571^**	.549^**	.725^*
	Sig. (2-tailed)		.003	.000	.000	.042
	N	45	45	45	45	45
EF	Pearson Correlation	.438^**	1	.532^**	.613^**	.771
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.003		.000	.000	.072
	N	45	45	45	45	45
AC	Pearson Correlation	.571^**	.532^**	1	.660^**	.654^**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000	.000		.000	.000
	N	45	45	45	45	45
CE	Pearson Correlation	.549^**	.613^**	.660^**	1	.555^**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000	.000	.000		.004
	N	45	45	45	45	45
P	Pearson Correlation	.305^*	.271	.654^**	.425^**	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.042	.072	.000	.004
	N	45	45	45	45	45

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

As it can be seen in the table above the value of each variable with performance is more than .5 which means that the null hypothesis 1 is rejected. The variables having more than .5 have good correlation with performance and the variables having more than .7 have high correlation.

TABLE 7: MODEL SUMMARY

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.690^a	.476	.424	.49524

A. Predictors: (Constant), CE, EF, LP, AC

TABLE 8: anova^b

Model		Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	8.922	4	2.230	9.094	.000^a
	Residual	9.811	40	.245
	Total	18.732	44

A. Predictors: (Constant), CE, EF, LP, AC

B. Dependent Variable: P

TABLE 9: COEFFICIENTS^A

Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	T	Sig.
Model		B	Std. Error	Beta	T	Sig.
1	(Constant)	.503	.478		1.053	.033
	LP	-.124	.177	-.102	-.705	.042
	EF	-.214	.120	-.216	-1.786	.035
	AC	1.177	.256	.755	4.593	.000
	CE	.055	.215	.040	.254	.004

TABLE 10: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. Deviation
LP	45	1	3	2.29	.537
EF	45	1.50	5.10	2.4511	.65976
AC	45	1.63	3.26	2.4159	.41812
CE	45	1.40	3.60	2.4267	.48249
P	45	1.20	3.80	2.6711	.65249
Valid N (listwise)	45

A. Dependent Variable: P

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:

The results of the correlation and regression analysis of both the colleges from Agra and Mathura showed that the dimensions of student engagement are related to each other. The absence of any of them can hinder the process of holistic development of the students in the universities. Performance is the dependent variable that does get affected by all the variables of engagement. All have equal or high correlation and effect of the student’s academic performance and therefore, inculcating any of the dimensions and not all will not serve the purpose and aim of Holistic development of a student. Student Engagement is a combination of all the dimensions in the right proposition. The results also show that both the colleges are practicing the concept of engagement but a better effect and benefit can be seen in the results of college 1 of Agra. All the other dimensions other than experience with the faculty has been rated high or correlation and their effect on the performance.

Reasons of reduction in Student’s performance:

The researcher has come up with various insights got after the interacting with the student’s as well as the staff of college of Agra and Mathura. These can be the untold reasons that are affecting the student’s resulting into degraded achievement and academic score in India.

· Poor relationships and lack of communication with The Faculty :

Student’s now a day’s find it an awkward affair or a waste of time interacting with the faculty with results into fear, lack of interest in the classroom, lack of clarity, lack of confidence, poor image, misunderstandings and doubts between the parties. The fear of humiliation, scolding, insult and proper response is what makes them land into the dearth of benefits and resources which can be only provided from the guidance of the teacher. The less the student is involved in the classroom the more of these problems arises. It is equally important for the teacher to look into the problems of the student and assume it as their responsibility to assist the student deal with his problems.

· Need of having a Friendly Campus Environment:

Another reason that was found from the student’s was the lack of friendly campus environment. The more the student’s feel comfortable with the environment the more will be the development and birth of new ideas. In fact, the student’s would want to spend most of the time inside the campus learning and practicing different creative and innovative ideas. Lack of friendly environment beyond a certain limit makes them feel like running away from the colleges. The universities are also suppose to have a clean and tidy campus providing the student with all the essential facilities like library, Laboratory, playground etc.

· Lack of Interaction with the Peer Groups:

In the era of practical teaching the lack of group activities in the classroom gives birth to the problem of hesitation, jealousy, biasness, hatred, revenge and unhealthy competition in the classroom. Hence, it becomes important for the teacher to inculcate the habit of team work by providing enough opportunities by giving group tasks so the students interact the most with each other solving their differences if any and learn from each other.

· Stress due to higher Academic Challenge:

The problem of higher stress can be witnessed in students since a very early age because of the ever increasing competition, tough work and career challenges. Also, other than this the stress related to their personal problems, parents expectations etc make them fall sick. Hypertension, stress, depression etc are some very commonly found problems in the youth. Therefore, these factors act as a hindrance in their path of success and stop them from accomplishing their career goals by decreasing their ability to perform and adversely affecting other parts of their body.

· Previous year’s Performances:

The past performances affect the student to a great extent. A demoralized student is no less than a dumb student who is incapable of performing at his best. This even inculcates the habits of fraud means, cheating; copying etc in the students otherwise they lose their heart with low grades. Hence, student engagement assists the student by boosting is morale and making him realizing his self worth making him learn throughout his academic years and leave behind his bad results.

The above were some of the adverse effects of not having proper student engagement in universities and colleges providing higher education. Summing up all the above factors it can be said that engagement holds it separate identity and hence, it should be practiced as a complete concept than in part and parcels. Institutions to some extent are adopting the measures and waiting for better results. The problem here is of lack of implementation, improvisation and feedback which can only be solved by complete and proper implementation of student engagement and not just few of its dimensions. The one complete solution to the above problems is the five benchmarks of NSSE that should be used by the institutions for coping up with the problem of lack of student involvement and performance.

Effects of Student engagement:

There were various relationships and variables of engagement that were found after an exhaustive literature review affecting various growth parameters of the students like performance, learning, growth and holistic development of the student. The new and old positive or negative relationships that were found and existed are depicted with the help of causal loop diagram (CLD) and stock flow diagrams below:

Figure 10 illustrates the combined effect of dimensions of student engagement on student’s performance of the students. The stock variable in the figure 8 is Student Engagement itself.

The stock flow diagram in the figure 8 is made of various factors like time devoted, topics of interest, learning interest, time devoted by the teacher, etc that can positively affect in the case if engagement is properly used else can adversely affect the circle.

Figure 9 illustrates the stock flow diagram the Lack of peer group interaction, lack of teacher interaction, less time devoted for practicing, time to forget, teachers knowledge, teachers experience, unfriendly campus environment, lack of healthy environment and lack of experience with the teacher etc are adversely affecting the loop and result into low success points during the examinations. There are variables that affect the loop and performance negatively.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS:

This paper made an attempt to study the variables that are directly or indirectly linked with the student engagement, its effect on student’s performance, growth and holistic learning and development of the youth pursuing higher level courses. The reasons are mentioned so as to improvise and implement the deeply discussed NSSE benchmarks in the paper. Hence, through the medium of this study possible measures were suggested that would assist the institutions in a better way. The benefit of engagement is not just to the students, but to all involved in the process. The student outcomes were used as a measure to guide the performance and various other issues which was never identified in the previous literatures being a guide for future studies in the same area. The measureable performance can now be used for conducting the pre and post analysis of implementation of engagement in the universities. The changes and future actions that are required for the betterment, guide decisions can be guided with the help of this paper. It would also help in attracting and retaining more of the existing students. It would help the institutions in adopting measures that would help the students as well as the institute itself in attracting better job opportunities by creating a good record of the institutions in the corporate market the This paper would serve all the stake holders of the educational institutions directly or indirectly related to each other because a system is always connected and all are dependent on each other. it would help in bringing awareness in the research community and other societies related the concept of student engagement which is not a much discussed and researched topic in the present era as it should have been based on the importance that it holds and roles that it plays and therefore, can be accepted as a universally applicable concept.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY & SCOPE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH:

The researcher for the successful and fruitful completion of this study has referred to various sources both pone of primary as well as secondary devoting additional time and effort for this research being one of the kind in this area. Because of the time constraint the sample size as well as the region covered was kept limited. In the future studies the area and the same size can be expanded further in other parts of the country based upon the minute insights and dimensions provided in this study. The software used was Stella which can be replaced by Vensim for a better systems modeling conducting simulation also.

CONCLUSION:

Drawing the attention towards the importance of student engagement and its benefits, an attempt is made in this paper to bring the role and effect of engagement on performance and students all over development and learning. A conceptual model as well as a system dynamics models are also proposed and constructed in the paper for better understanding of the concept of student engagement. The underlying principles for the development of the conceptual framework is based upon the empirical, descriptive and theoretical justifications and researches in the field of human resource management and higher education both from national as well as international literatures. This research paper is an exceptional work setting forth the conceptual framework tested and validated creating more possibilities of future researches in this area. The model connects the existing research literatures with the new concepts and development in the area. The paper presents new opportunities of future researches for validating the models and framework both in a larger data set or cross-sectional studies. It is believed that the systems models and conceptual framework developed in this paper will be contributing by adding value in the planning, improvement, modification, rectification and conceptualization of the upcoming research in this respective area.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

The authors are thankful to the facilities, students and staff of both the colleges of Agra and Mathura for their response and sharing their experiences with us. Also, I am grateful to my supervisor Prof. K. Santi Swarup, Professor, Department of management for his support and guidance.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS:

NSSE- National Survey of Student Engagement

CE-Campus Environment

AC-Academic Challenge

HI-High Impact Practices

LP-Learning with the Peers

EF-Experience with the Faculty

P-Performance

REFERENCE:

1. Adena M. Klem, J. P. (2004). Relationships Matter: Linking Teacher Support to Student Engagement and Achievement. Journal of School Health, 74 (7), 1-12.

2. Atnip, B. R. (2015). Assessing the Relationship Between Student and Faculty Perceptions of Student Engagement at Central Mountain College. Lincoln.

3. Carey, P. (2013). Student engagement in university decision-making: policies,processes and the student voice. United kingdom.

4. Chun-Mei Zhao, G. D. (2004). Adding Value: Learning Communities and Student Engagement.Research in Higher Education,45( 2),115-138

5. Derek, l. (2013). A review of the student engagement literature. Focus on colleges, universities, and schools, 7 (1), 1-8.

6. Ellen A. Skinner, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal Effects of Teacher Behavior and Student Engagement Across the School year. Journal of Education Psychology , 1-11.

7. Engagement, N. S. (2013). A fresh look at students Engagement. Bloomington.

8. George D. Kuh, J. K. (2006). What Matters to Student Success: A Review of the Literature.

9. George D. Kuh, T. M. (2008). Unmasking the Effects of Student Engagement on First-Year College Grades and Persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79 (5), 540-563.

10. Giuseppe Iaria, H. H. (2008). Assessing Student Engagement in Small and Large Classes.

11. GUNUC, D. S. (2014). The Relationship between Student Engagement and Their Academic Development. 5 (4), 1-16.

12. Irem Inceoglu, N. S. (2011). Student Engagement In The Context Of Work Based Learning As An Unconventional Form Of Higher Education. 1, 1-9.

13. Jalynn Roberts, M. N. (2007). Student Involvement/Engagement in Higher Education Based on Student Origin. Research in Higher Education Journal , 2-8.

14. Korobova, N. (2012). A comparative study of student engagement,satisfaction, and academic success among international and American students. 5-205.

15. Leah Taylor, J. P. (2011). Improving Student Engagement. Current Issues in Education, 14 (1).

16. Mandernach, B. J. (2015, June). Assessment of Student Engagement in Higher Education: A Synthesis of Literature and Assessment Tools. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research , 1-14.

17. Mccolskey, J. A. (2012). The Measurement of Student Engagement: A Comparative Analysis of Various Methods and Student Self-report Instruments. U.S.A: Springer Science+Business Media.

18. Mick Healey, A. F. (2014). Engagement through partnership:students as partners in learning and teaching in Higher Education. UK.

19. Ndudzo, D. (2013). An Evaluation of Student Engagement in the Odl Higher Education Context in Zimbabwe. IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM), 15 (2), 57-66.

20. P. C. Pimentel Bótas, G. M. (2013). Student Engagement in Learning and Teaching Quality Management: A Study of UK Practices. Bath: Quality Assurance Agency.

21. Paul D. Umbach, M. R. (1900). Faculty Do Matter: The Role of College Faculty in Student Learning and Engagement. Bloomington.

22. Rhoades, G. (2012). Faculty Engagement to Enhance Student Attainment . Arizona.

23. Robert M. Carini, G. D. (2004). Student Engagement and Student Learning: Testing the Linkages. San Diego.

24. Shelley R. Hart, K. S. (2011). The Student Engagement in Schools Questionnaire (SESQ) and the Teacher Engagement Report Form-New (TERF-N): Examining the Preliminary Evidence. 15, 2-68.

25. Stuart, R. M. (2015). Transnational Student Engagement:The Invisible Students? Austria.

26. Thomas, L. (2012). Building student engagement and belonging in Higher Education at a time of change: final report from the What Works? Student Retention & Success programme. England.

27. Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. U.S.A.

28. Willms, j. D. (2000). Student engagement at school: a sense of belonging and participation. Pisa.

29. Chris Ward, D. Y. (2009). Exploring The Relationship Between Student Engagement And Common Business Knowledge: A Pilot Study. American Journal of Business Education, 2 (9).

30. Astin, A .W . (1984) Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education . Journal of College Student Development . 25, pp . 297–308 .

31. Astin, A .W . (1993) What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .

32. Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

33. Baron, P. and Corbin, L. (2012) Student engagement: rhetoric and reality. Higher Education Research and Development 31:6, 759-772.

34. Chickering, A .W .andGamson, Z .F . (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education . AAHE Bulletin . 39 (7), pp . 3–7

35. Chickering, A .W .andReisser, L . (1993) Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Christie, H ., Munro, M . and Wager, F . (2005) ‘Day Students’ in Higher Education: Widening Access Students and Successful Transition to University Life . International Studies in Sociology of Education. 15 (1), pp . 3–29.

36. Carlson, S. (2005). The Net Generation goes to college. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Section: Information Technology, 52(7), A34

37. Coates, H . (2005) The Value of Student Engagement for Higher Education Quality Assurance Quality in Higher Education . 11 (1), pp . 25–36.

38. Carter, M., McGee, R., Taylor, B., & Williams, S. (2007). Health outcomes in adolescence: Associations with family, friends and school engagement. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 51-62. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.04.002

39. Coates, H. (2007) A Model of Online and General Campus-Based Student Engagement Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education . 32 (2), pp .121–141.

40. 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.

41. Freud, S. (1922) in Ferguson, A. (2007) ‘Employee engagement: Does it exist, and if so, how does it relate to performance, other constructs and individual differences?’

42. Hand, L. and Bryson, C. (2008) Student Engagement. London: Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA)

43. Higher Education Academy (2010) Framework for action: enhancing student engagement at the institutional level. York: The Higher Education Academy (HEA).

44. James, R., Krause, K.-L.and Jennings, C. (2010) The first-year experience in Australian universities: Findings from 1994-2009. Melbourne, Australia: centre for the Study of Higher Education.

45. Leslie, D., &Fretwell, E. (1996). Wise moves in hard times: Creating and managing resilient colleges and universities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

46. Kuh, G. D., Douglas, K. B., Lund, J. P., &RaminGyurnek, J. (1994). Student learning outside the classroom: Transcending artificial boundaries (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 8). Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC.

47. Kuh, G. (1995) The other curriculum: out-of-class experiences associated with student learning and personal development, Journal of Higher Education, 66(2), 123-155

48. Kuh, G. (2001) The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties (Bloomington, Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research).

49. Kuh, G., Gonyea, R. & Williams, J. (2005) What students expect from college and what they get, in: T. Miller, B. Bender, J. Schuh and associates (Eds) Promoting reasonable expectations (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass).

50. Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. & Whitt, E. (2005) Student success in college (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass).

51. Parsons, J. McRae, P. & Taylor, L. (2006) Celebrating School Improvement: Six Lessons from Alberta’s AISI Projects. Edmonton: School Improvement Press.

52. QAA (2012) UK Quality Code for Higher Education. Part B: Chapter B5: Student Engagement. Gloucester: QAA The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

53. Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B. &Shernoff, E. (2003).Student Engagement in High School Classrooms from the Perspective of Flow Theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158-176.

54. Trowler, V. (2010) Student Engagement Literature Review. York: HEA Higher Education Academy.

55. Whitt, E. J., Edison, M. I., Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., and Nora, A. (2001). Influences on Students' Openness to Diversity and Challenge in the Second and Third Years of College. Influences on students' openness to diversity and challenge in the second and third years of college. Journal of Higher Education 72(2): 172-204.

56. Whipple, W. R. (1987). Collaborative learning. AAHE Bulletin 40(2): 3-7.

57. Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2010).Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(3), 167-177.

58. www.scholarship.nic.in

Received on 14.04.2017 Modified on 11.05.2017

Asian J. Management; 2017; 8(3):645-656.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5763.2017.00103.2

	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. Deviation
Learning with the peers	50	1.30	5.10	2.3120	.61367
Experience with the faculty	50	1.60	4.10	2.4660	.48974
Academic challenge	50	1.80	2.80	2.4000	.29207
Campus environment	50	1.50	3.70	2.4360	.52596
Performance	50	1.40	4.20	2.4400	.63246
Valid n (listwise)	50

S.No.	Regression equations of college 1 of Agra	Regression equations of college 2 of Mathura
1.	The first regression equation shows the relationship of the variable is Learning with the Peers and Performance which is “Student Engagement= 1.33 + .48 LP”.	The first regression equation shows the relationship of the variable is Learning with the Peers and Performance which is “Student Engagement= 1.82 + .37 LP”.
2.	The second regression equation shows the relationship of the variable Experiences with the Faculty and Performance which is “Student Engagement= 1.16 + .51 EF”.	The second regression equation shows the relationship of the variable Experiences with the Faculty and Performance which is “Student Engagement= 2.63 + .01 EF”.
3.	The third regression equation shows the relationship of the variable Academic Challenge and Performance which is “Student Engagement= -.683 + 1.30 AC”.	The third regression equation shows the relationship of the variable Academic Challenge and Performance which is “Student Engagement= -.207 + 1.02 AC”.
4.	The fourth regression equation shows the relationship of the variable Campus Environment and Performance which is “Student Engagement= 1.13 + .53 CE”.	The fourth regression equation shows the relationship of the variable Campus Environment and Performance which is “Student Engagement= 1.277 + .57 CE”.