Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cher20
Higher Education Research & Development
ISSN: 0729-4360 (Print) 1469-8366 (Online) Journal homepage: https://tandfonline.com/loi/cher20
Engaging students emotionally: the role of
emotional intelligence in predicting cognitive and
affective engagement in higher education
Rebecca Maguire, Arlene Egan, Philip Hyland & Phil Maguire
To cite this article: Rebecca Maguire, Arlene Egan, Philip Hyland & Phil Maguire (2017) Engaging
students emotionally: the role of emotional intelligence in predicting cognitive and affective
engagement in higher education, Higher Education Research & Development, 36:2, 343-357, DOI:
10.1080/07294360.2016.1185396
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1185396
Published online: 22 May 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1228
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 6 View citing articles
Engaging students emotionally: the role of emotional
intelligence in predicting cognitive and affective engagement
in higher education
Rebecca Maguire
a
, Arlene Egan
a
, Philip Hyland
a
and Phil Maguire
b
a
School of Business, National College of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland;
b
Department of Computer Science, Maynooth
University, Maynooth, Ireland
ABSTRACT
Student engagement is a key predictor of academic performance,
persistence and retention in higher education. While many studies
have identified how aspects of the college environment influence
engagement, fewer have specifically focused on emotional
intelligence (EI). In this study, we sought to explore whether EI
could predict cognitive and/or affective engagement in a sample of
undergraduate psychology students in Ireland. Ninety-one students
completed two forms of the student engagement instrument,
rating current engagement and retrospective secondary school
engagement, along with the trait EI (TEI) questionnaire. After
controlling for academic ability, gender and school engagement,
multiple regression analyses found TEI to be a positive predictor of
both cognitive and affective engagement. Previous academic
performance acted as an additional predictor of cognitive
engagement, while retrospective affective school engagement
predicted current affective engagement. These results suggest that
interventions aimed at increasing EI may have positive implications
for many aspects of student engagement, and hence performance
at third level.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 2 September 2015
Accepted 14 April 2016
KEYWORDS
Cognitive and affective
engagement; higher
education; Ireland; student
engagement; trait emotional
intelligence
Introduction
Student engagement is often cited as the most crucial factor in predicting educational
success, with a wealth of research aimed at determining how best to foster this in
higher education (Grier-Reed, Appleton, Rodriguez, Ganuza, & Reschly, 2012). Low
engagement is considered a key risk factor in student dropout and lack of persistence at
both second level (i.e., in secondary/high school) and third level (i.e., in college/university)
(Quaye & Harper, 2014), with engagement consequently viewed as essential for student
learning (Finn & Zimmer, 2012). Within higher education, focus is often placed on mod-
ifying external factors, such as teaching and learning strategies, as a means of increasing
engagement (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2005). Nevertheless, when understanding pre-
dictors of engagement, it is important to acknowledge that student characteristics play a
role in guiding this process. In particular, a student’s level of emotional intelligence (EI)
may be a significant factor, especially given its associations with academic performance
© 2016 HERDSA
CONTACT Rebecca Maguire rebecca.maguire@ncirl.ie
HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, 2017
VOL. 36, NO. 2, 343–357
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1185396
(Perera & DiGiacomo, 2013). In this paper, we investigate whether EI can predict different
aspects of student engagement, namely cognitive and affective engagement, which in turn
may inform interventions intended to increase persistence in third level.
Understanding engagement
The importance of engagement is well documented (Carini, Kuh, & Klein, 2006), with
clear associations observed between engagement and grades both at second (Reschly &
Christenson, 20 06) and third levels (Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea, 2008).
Beyond academic gains, increased engagement can lead to benefits in numerous
domains, ranging fr om skill development and competence, to enhanced psy chological
well-being and more positive views of self (Quaye & Harper, 2014). Kuh and col-
leagues (2008) note that engagement can compensate for previous performance
by enhancing grades and persistence throughout higher education, regardless of
past academic results. How ever , while its importance is undisputed, a cer tain
amount of debate surrounds the exact nature of engagement and its influences
(Zepke, 2015).
Engagement is traditionally conceptualised as the effort students direct towards their
learning (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). This is typically manifested as participation in
educationally effective practices, both within and/or outside the college environment
(Quaye & Harper, 2014). In recent years, the meaning of engagement has been
expanded beyond examining the effort that students deploy in their learning activities,
to how the institution adapts its resources and teaching strategies to encourage partici-
pation (Kuh, 2007). Thus, engagement is no longer viewed as simply an attribute of the
student, but as a product of the wider social and cultural context (Christenson, Reschly,
& Wylie, 2012; Zepke, 2015) and, as such, is amenable to intervention at the insti-
tutional level.
Many researchers now recognise the multidimensional nature of engagement, with
Appleton, Christenson, Kim, and Reschly (2006) reporting four distinct, yet interrelated,
aspects: academic, behavioural, cognitive and affective (see also Fredricks, Blumenfeld,
& Paris, 2004). While the latter two aspects may be objectively observed in terms of
completion of assignments, attendance and class participation, cognitive and affective
engagement are more subjective, relating to students’ perceptions of their learning
and support. Affective engagement comprises feelings of belongingness and relatedness
to those in college, while cognitive engagement entails the psychological investment stu-
dents place in their academic work, their educational goals and feelings of control
(Lawson & Lawson, 2013). Thus, engagement involves more than just participation in
educational activities: it also involves feelings and sense making (Harper & Quaye,
2009).
Lack of engagement in either the cognitive and/or affective domains may offer an
explanation for the two core difficulties experienced when students transition to third
level, namely problems in academic or social aspects of college (McCoy, Smyth,
Watson, & Darmody, 2014). Since difficulties in either of these areas can result in
student dropout, a greater understanding of what leads to low cognitive and affective
engagement is merited so as to inform best practice in higher education (Drennan
et al., 2014).
344 R. MAGUIRE ET AL.
Predictors of engagement
Understanding what drives students to engage in higher education has been the focus of
much research investigation, with a propensity of studies appearing in the last decade
(Zepke, 2015). Although engagement has a developmental path from second to third
level (Finn, 1989), this characteristic is modifiable, with variations observed across
different time periods and cohorts (Finn & Zimmer, 2012). While academic ability
may play a role in progression (McCoy & Byrne, 2011), prior performance at second
level does not necessarily predict engagement at third level. Kuh and colleagues
(2008), for example, suggest that engagement in college can act as a protective factor
for historically poor performing students. While many studies illustrate the importance
of aspects of the college environment in facilitating engagement, such as faculty–student
contact and collaborative learning (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005), fewer have specifi-
cally focused on how pre-existing student characteristics facilitate, or impede, engage-
ment in educational settings.
One characteristic which has received a lot of attention with regard to performance and
engagement is that of gender. While gender gaps are narrowing in further education, Sax
(2008) notes that males fare worse than females across a range of educational outcomes, a
pattern rooted in second-level education. In Ireland, females outnumber males in college,
consistently outperforming them in a number of domains (Mooney, Patterson, O’Connor,
& Chantler, 2010). Furthermore, a recent OECD (2015) report, including Irish data, found
young males as significantly more likely to emerge from education with lower academic
achievement and skills attainment than their female counterparts. This discrepancy
may be due to differences in engagement, a view supported by Kinzie and colleagues
(2007) who note women are more likely to participate in educationally purposive activities
and devote greater time and effort to challenging tasks. This may explain why they are
more likely to complete third-level education and pursue graduate studies (Marrs,
Sigler, & Brammer, 2012). In the current study, we seek to investigate whether gender
differences exist in either cognitive and/or affective engagement; however, the key focus
of this paper is to investigate the role of EI in predicting these components.
Emotional intelligence
Emotions experienced in third level are known to influence numerous aspects of student
perceptions, including satisfaction and institutional loyalty (White, 2013) as well as stu-
dents’ views on their learning and assessment (Crossman, 2007). Consequently, research-
ers are developing an awareness of the importance of EI in education (Mortiboys, 2013).
Over the past number of decades, EI has become ‘one of the most visible and high-profile
constructs in individual difference research’ (Zeidner, Roberts, & Matthews, 2008, p. 64),
receiving much attention in the areas of training, development and performance.
Following Goleman’s(1995) initial theory, the current consensus is to consider EI from
two distinct theoretical perspectives (Sanchez-Ruiz, Mavroveli, & Poullis, 2013). The first
views EI as an ability, possibly linked with general intelligence (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade,
2008). This ability EI involves the capacity to perceive, express, understand, analyse and
assimilate emotion in thought, as well as being able to reflect
on, regulate, and promote
emotional and intellectual growth (Mayer & Salovey, 2007). While typically assessed via
HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 345
cognitive-emotional ability tasks, the second perspective, trait EI (TEI) is assessed via self-
report measures, as it is more concerned with a person’s own perception of their emotional
characteristics, as well as their feelings of self-efficacy (Goleman, 1995; Petrides &
Furnham, 2001). Petrides (2011, p. 657) accordingly describes TEI as ‘a constellation
of self-perceptions located at the lower end of personality hierarchies’, with Perera and
DiGiacomo (2013) viewing this as the typical patterns of emotional regulation, perception
and expression within an individual. Given the greater association between TEI and aca-
demic performance (Perera & DiGiacomo, 2013; Sanchez-Ruiz et al., 2013) and the sug-
gestion of a strong relationship between TEI and job performance (Joseph, Jin, Newman,
&O’Boyle, 2015), we chose to adopt this perspective, rather than ability EI, in the current
study.
While researchers are beginning to recognise the role that TEI plays in academic per-
formance (Parker, Summerfeldt, Hogan, & Majeski, 2004; Saklofske, Austin, Mastoras,
Beaton, & Osborne, 2012; Sanchez-Ruiz et al., 2013), the specific mechanism for explain-
ing this relation remains unclear (Perera & DiGiacomo, 2013). Mavroveli and Sánchez-
Ruiz (2011) note EI should not be directly involved in academic performance, given
that it is an affective characteristic. However, we hypothesise that this link may be
explained in terms of enhanced engagement, both affective and cognitive. The role of
EI in facilitating workplace engagement has recently been documented (Akhtar, Boustani,
Tsivrikos, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2015), with a handful of studies identifying a relation-
ship between EI and measures associated with engagement in academic settings (Durán,
Extremera, & Rey, 2004; Wurf & Croft-Piggin, 2015). Parker, Hogan, Eastabrook, Oke,
and Wood (2006) note that high EI promotes successful transition from second to third
level, with those scoring higher in EI generally faring better in first year of college (McMil-
lan, 2014). This is consistent with the finding that students’ outlook, specifically having
positive feelings before starting college, is more important in predicting adjustment
than objective circumstances (Stevens & Walker, 1996).
Although TEI might be expected to have positive implications for affective engagement,
given that it is an affective characteristic (Mavroveli & Sánchez-Ruiz, 2011), greater uncer-
tainty surrounds the issue of whether cognitive engagement might be influenced in the
same way. One possible theory is that cognitive engagement may be facilitated by TEI
because of its association with greater perseverance and goal setting (e.g., Mount,
Barrick, & Strauss, 1999). Those with high TEI are also likely to exhibit enhanced self-
regulation (Salovey, Bedell, Detweiler, & Mayer, 2000), recognised as a crucial factor in
persistence (Volet & Mansfield, 2006
). Indeed Perera and DiGiacomo (2013)
note that
a dispositional tendency towards self-control, a characteristic of those high in TEI, may
serve as a key adaptive mechanism in a sustained academic goal-approach, thereby poten-
tially leading to increases in cognitive engagement.
Beyond enhanced goal setting and self-regulation, EI has also been shown to buffer
against stress and burnout in students (Durán et al., 2004). Saklofske and colleagues
(2012) note that, given the role it plays in emotional regulation, EI may act as an expla-
natory variable for stress exhibited. Moreover, those with high TEI may be better at reg-
ulating emotions through cognitive reappraisal (Perera & DiGiacomo, 2013), which would
have benefits for cognitive as well as affective engagement. EI may hence be viewed as an
important adaptive mechanism which enables students to handle stressors in their aca-
demic life (Saklofske et al., 2012).
346 R. MAGUIRE ET AL.
