Construct · 8 fields · 13 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one name, seven constructs Nearest construct by meaningengagementcompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to engagement is engagement.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The harnessing of a person's full self (physical, cognitive, emotional) in the performance of a work role, and disengagement as its withdrawal. Kahn fixed the concept in 1990 as a momentary condition that depends on meaningfulness, safety, and availability. Schaufeli and colleagues rebuilt it in 2002 as a persistent, positive state with three parts, vigor, dedication, and absorption, and measured it as a construct distinct from burnout. The referent is the job, not the employer, which is what separates it from commitment.[1][2]
A customer's behavioural manifestations toward a brand or firm that go beyond buying: word of mouth, reviews, referrals, helping other customers, complaining. Van Doorn and colleagues defined customer engagement behaviour in 2010 by this non-transactional criterion, and Brodie and colleagues in 2011 widened it to a psychological state that arises from interactive, co-creative experiences with a focal object. Two things separate it from the work meaning: the object is a brand, and the behaviour is voluntary and unpaid.[3][4]
A count. Engagement on a platform is whatever the platform logs as a user action on a piece of content (likes, comments, shares, clicks, dwell time) usually normalized by audience or reach into an engagement rate. Bonsón and Ratkai built a metric set of exactly this kind for corporate Facebook pages; Ksiazek, Peer, and Lessard treated comments and commenting-on-comments as user engagement with news and showed the two do not move together. There is no psychological state in the definition and no claim that the user felt anything.[5][6]
A quality of user experience with a technology, characterized by focused attention, aesthetic and sensory appeal, felt involvement, perceived usability, and endurability, the wish to return. O'Brien and Toms derived the framework in 2008 from interviews about shopping, gaming, and search, and described engagement as a process with a point of engagement, sustained engagement, disengagement, and re-engagement. The User Engagement Scale operationalizes it. It is the felt, in-session counterpart of what platform analytics counts from outside.[7][8]
A student's involvement in school and learning, in three kinds: behavioural (attendance, participation, following rules), emotional (interest, belonging, reactions to teachers and peers), and cognitive (investment and strategy in learning). Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris fixed the three-part structure in 2004 and argued its value is that it is malleable, a lever for intervention, not a trait. Unlike the work meaning, it is usually rated by teachers and observers as well as students, and unlike the platform meaning, mere clicks in a learning system do not count.[9]
Individual and collective action to identify and address issues of public concern, voting, volunteering, joining associations, working with neighbours. Putnam's Bowling Alone made the decline in these activities a national diagnosis; Adler and Goggin surveyed the definitions in 2005 and found the term used for community service, collective action, political involvement, and social change, with no agreed core. The referent is the polity or the community, and the measure is what people do, not what they feel.[10][11]
In the theory of war, the engagement is the fight itself: a combat action in which opposing armed forces come into direct contact and use force to decide an outcome. Clausewitz's On War, published in 1832, treated the engagement, in the original German das Gefecht, as the fundamental unit of war, the single activity toward which all military arrangement points. Here the word names an event of organized violence between forces, wholly unlike a worker's motivation, a customer's loyalty, or a student's attention, with which it shares only the spelling.[12]
In engineering education, engagement refers to student engagement in engineering seen as shaped by faculty, through their teaching practices and the learning environments they create in and out of class. This meaning comes from Chen (2008) in Journal of Engineering Education.[13]
Next
Combine items across the engagement scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct