Agentic Engagement in Education: A Systematic Review of its Characteristics, Factors, and Impacts (2011–2024)

  • Rany Aprilia Utami 
    Universitas Indonesia
    Indonesia
  • Farida Kurniawati
    Universitas Indonesia
    Indonesia

Abstract

This systematic literature review examines the concept of agentic engagement, a form of proactive student involvement in learning defined by self-directed behaviours such as expressing preferences, seeking clarifications, and actively shaping the instructional environment. Previous research on engagement has predominantly focused on behavioural, emotional, and cognitive dimensions, making agentic engagement—which was introduced in 2011—a novel branch in the study of student engagement. Consequently, this review analyses studies published between 2011 and 2024, sourced from five major databases: Sage Journals, ScienceDirect, Scopus, SpringerLink, and Taylor & Francis. We identified and thoroughly reviewed a total of 15 eligible articles across three key dimensions: (1) characteristics of students exhibiting agentic engagement, (2) factors contributing to the development of agentic engagement, and (3) the impacts of agentic engagement on students' learning. Additionally, an in-depth analysis addresses ways to enhance agentic engagement through an intervention called the Autonomy-Supportive Intervention Program (ASIP). This analysis suggests that agentic engagement is a vital educational aspect, benefiting students by fostering academic resilience, self-efficacy, motivation, and school adjustment, while also reducing test anxiety. Teachers can cultivate supportive learning environments that foster student agentic engagement with the help of ASIP. The implications of agentic engagement extend beyond traditional classroom settings, providing valuable insights into student-centred practices that encourage self-determination and active participation. Furthermore, understanding agentic engagement can guide teachers in gaining deeper insights into their students and help them identify those who require greater encouragement or motivation. Additionally, counsellors can design targeted interventions to enhance agentic engagement in learning. This literature review highlights the transformative potential of agentic engagement in education, especially in school settings, and suggests promising avenues for future research. 

Keywords
  • Agentic engagement
  • Student engagement
  • Autonomy-Supportive Intervention Program (ASIP)
  • Academic resilience
  • Self-determination
Lisensing Information
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Utami, R. A., & Kurniawati, F. (2024). Agentic Engagement in Education: A Systematic Review of its Characteristics, Factors, and Impacts (2011–2024). KONSELOR, 13(4), 307–326. https://doi.org/10.24036/02024134104-0-86
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX
References
  1. Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van den Berghe, L., De Meyer, J., & Haerens, L. (2014). Fostering a Need-Supportive Teaching Style: Intervention Effects on Physical Education Teachers’ Beliefs and Teaching Behaviors. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 36, 595–609. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2013-0229
  2. Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Keer, H., Van den Berghe, L., De Meyer, J., & Haerens, L. (2012). Students’ objectively measured physical activity levels and eng agement as a function of between-class and between-student differences in motivation toward physical education. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34(4), 457–480. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.34.4.457
  3. Almusharraf, N. M., & Bailey, D. (2021). Online engagement during COVID-19: Role of agency on collaborative learning orientation and learning expectations. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(5), 1285–1295. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12569
  4. Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a Psychology of Human Agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x
  5. Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740–756. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<740::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-3
  6. Brod, G., Kucirkova, N., Shepherd, J., Jolles, D., & Molenaar, I. (2023). Agency in Educational Technology: Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Implications for Learning Design. Educational Psychology Review, 35(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09749-x
  7. Bryson, C., & Hand, L. (2007). The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(4), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290701602748
  8. Cheon, S. H., & Reeve, J. (2015). A classroom-based intervention to help teachers decrease students’ amotivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.06.004
  9. Cheon, S. H., & Reeve, J. (2019). An intervention to help teachers establish a prosocial peer climate in physical education. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.02.002
  10. Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., Lee, Y., Ntoumanis, N., Gillet, N., Kim, B., & Song, Y.-G. (2018). Expanding Autonomy Psychological Need States From Two (Satisfaction, Frustration) to Three (Dissatisfaction): A Classroom-Based Intervention Study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000306
  11. Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Moon, I. S. (2012). Experimentally based, longitudinally designed, teacher-focused Intervention to help physical education teachers be more autonomy supportive toward their students. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 34(3), 365–396. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.34.3.365
  12. Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Song, Y. G. (2016). A teacher-focused intervention to decrease PE students’ amotivation by increasing need satisfaction and decreasing need frustration. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 38(3), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2015-0236
  13. Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Song, Y. G. (2019). Recommending goals and supporting needs: An intervention to help physical education teachers communicate their expectations while supporting students’ psychological needs. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 41, 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.12.008
  14. Cohen, R., Moed, A., Shoshani, A., Roth, G., & Kanat-Maymon, Y. (2020). Teachers’ Conditional Regard and Students’ Need Satisfaction and Agentic Engagement: A Multilevel Motivation Mediation Model. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(4), 790–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01114-y
  15. deCharms, R. (1976). Enhancing motivation: Change in the classroom. Irvington.
  16. Deci, E., & Flaste, R. (1995). Why we do what we do: The dynamics of personal autonomy.
  17. Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(5), 642–650. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.73.5.642
  18. Erss, M., Loogma, K., & Jõgi, A. L. (2024). The effect of teacher agency support, students’ personal perseverance and work experience on student agency in secondary schools with Estonian and Russian instructional language. Cogent Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2314515
  19. Espejo, N. N. D. (2018). Difference in academic engagement among college students as a function of learning environment. 1–19.
  20. Fitzpatrick, J., Ogrady, E., & Oreilly, J. (2018). Promoting student agentic engagement through curriculum: exploring the Negotiated Integrated Curriculum initiative. Irish Educational Studies, 37(4), 453–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2018.1512882
  21. Fletcher, A. K. (2016). Exceeding expectations: scaffolding agentic engagement through assessment as learning. Educational Research, 58(4), 400–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2016.1235909
  22. Flink, C., Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1990). Controlling teaching strategies: Undermining children’s self-determination and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 916–924. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.916
  23. 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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
  24. Fredricks, J. A., Wang, M.-T., Schall Linn, J., Hofkens, T. L., Sung, H., Parr, A., & Allerton, J. (2016). Using qualitative methods to develop a survey measure of math and science engagement. Learning and Instruction, 43, 5–15. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.009
  25. Goagoses, N., Itenge, H., Winschiers-Theophilus, H., & Koglin, U. (2021). The influence of social achievement goals on academic engagement: a cross-sectional survey in a Namibian primary school. South African Journal of Psychology, 51(3), 356–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246320957291
  26. Gu, J., Zhan, Y., Zhao, L., & He, W. (2024). Teachers’ motivating styles and students’ agentic engagement in online learning. Distance Education, 0(0), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2024.2338707
  27. Hadiana D. (2024, July 28). Penghapusan jurusan di SMA dan mewujudkan murid berdaya. Kompas. https://www.kompas.id/baca/opini/2024/07/28/penghapusan-jurusan-di-sma-dan-mewujudkan-murid-berdaya
  28. Halili, S. H., Rahman, N. H. A., & Razak, R. A. (2018). Traditional versus virtual learning: How engaged are the students in learning English literature? Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v8i1.11467
  29. Hensley, L. C., Iaconelli, R., & Wolters, C. A. (2022). “This weird time we’re in”: How a sudden change to remote education impacted college students’ self-regulated learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(sup1), S203–S218. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1916414
  30. Jansen, R. S., van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Conijn, R., & Kester, L. (2020). Supporting learners’ self-regulated learning in Massive Open Online Courses. Computers & Education, 146, 103771. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103771
  31. Jimerson, S., Campos, E., & Green, J. (2003). Toward an Understanding of Definitions and Measures of School Engagement and Related Terms. The California School Psychologist: CASP / California Association of School Psychologists, 8, 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03340893
  32. Kahn, P. E. (2014). Theorising student engagement in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 40(6), 1005–1018. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3121
  33. Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2024, March). Kemendikbudristek Terbitkan Payung Hukum bagi Implementasi Kurikulum Merdeka secara Nasional. Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia. https://www.kemdikbud.go.id/main/blog/2024/03/kemendikbudristek-terbitkan-payung-hukum-bagi-implementasi-kurikulum-merdeka-secara-nasional
  34. Kim, R., & Song, H.-D. (2023). Developing an agentic engagement scale in a self-paced MOOC. Distance Education, 44(1), 120–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2022.2155619
  35. Kompas. (2024, July 19). Kemendikbud hapus jurusan IPA, IPS, dan bahasa di SMA, berlaku mulai kapan? Kompas. https://www.kompas.com/tren/read/2024/07/19/180000265/kemendikbud-hapus-jurusan-ipa-ips-dan-bahasa-di-sma-berlaku-mulai-kapan-?page=all
  36. Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 432–479. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313480891
  37. Li, Q., Jiang, Q., Liang, J.-C., Pan, X., & Zhao, W. (2022). The influence of teaching motivations on student engagement in an online learning environment in China. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6 SE-Articles), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7280
  38. Lin, T. J. (2021). Multi-dimensional explorations into the relationships between high school students’ science learning self-efficacy and engagement. International Journal of Science Education, 43(8), 1193–1207. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1904523
  39. Maehr, M. L., & Anderman, E. M. (1993). Reinventing schools for early adolescents: Emphasizing task goals. The Elementary School Journal, 93(5), 593–610. https://doi.org/10.1086/461742
  40. Makarim, M. F. (2023). Peran Internal Locus of Control dan External Locus of Control Sebagai Moderator Dalam Hubungan Antara Persepsi Gaya Mengajar Controlling Guru dengan Keterlibatan Agentik Pada Siswa SMA.
  41. Makarim & Primana. (2023). Agentic Engagement Siswa: Tinjauan Literatur Sistematik. Psyche 165 Journal, 16(2), 61–66. https://doi.org/10.35134/jpsy165.v16i2.234
  42. Mameli, C., Molinari, L., & Passini, S. (2019). Agency and responsibility in adolescent students: A challenge for the societies of tomorrow. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12215
  43. Maralani M. F., Shalbaf, A., & Gholamali Lavasani, M. (2018). Agentic Engagement and Test Anxiety: The Mediatory Role of the Basic Psychological Needs. SAGE Open, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018772884
  44. Matos, L., Reeve, J., Herrera, D., & Claux, M. (2018). Students’ agentic engagement predicts longitudinal increases in perceived autonomy-supportive teaching: The squeaky wheel gets the grease. In Journal of Experimental Education (Vol. 86, Issue 4, pp. 592–609). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2018.1448746
  45. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Antes, G., Atkins, D., Barbour, V., Barrowman, N., Berlin, J. A., Clark, J., Clarke, M., Cook, D., D’Amico, R., Deeks, J. J., Devereaux, P. J., Dickersin, K., Egger, M., Ernst, E., Gøtzsche, P. C., … Tugwell, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
  46. Olana, E., & Tefera, B. (2022). Academic self-concept as the predictor of secondary school adolescent students’ school engagement. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 11(4), 2114–2121. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v11i4.23486
  47. Ole, F. C. B., & Gallos, M. R. (2023). Impact of formative assessment based on feedback loop model on high school students’ conceptual understanding and engagement with physics. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 20(2), 333–355. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2023.019
  48. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  49. Patall, E. A. (2024). Agentic Engagement: Transcending Passive Motivation. Motivation Science, 10(3), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000332
  50. Patall, E., Zambrano, J., Kennedy, A., Yates, N., & Vallín, J. (2021). Promoting an Agentic Orientation: An Intervention in University Psychology and Physical Science Courses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000614
  51. Pelletier, L. G., & Vallerand, R. J. (1996). Supervisors’ beliefs and subordinates’ intrinsic motivation: A behavioral confirmation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.331
  52. R. Ryan & Edward Deci. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000340
  53. Raley, S. K., Wehmeyer, M. L., Grandfield, E., Jones, J., & Shaw, L. A. (2019). Exploring the Relationships among Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction and Frustration , Agentic Engagement , Motivation , and Self-Determination in Adolescents with Disabilities. 119–128.
  54. Reeve, J. (1998). Autonomy Support as an Interpersonal Motivating Style: Is It Teachable? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(3), 312–330. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0975
  55. Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903028990
  56. Reeve, J. (2012). Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, January 2012, 1–840. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
  57. Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032690
  58. Reeve, J. (2016). Autonomy-Supportive Teaching: What It Is, How to Do It (pp. 129–152). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-630-0_7
  59. Reeve, J., Cheon, S. H., & Yu, T. H. (2020). An autonomy-supportive intervention to develop students’ resilience by boosting agentic engagement. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 44(4), 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025420911103
  60. Reeve, J., & Cheon, S. H. (2021). Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits, and potential to improve educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 56(1), 54–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1862657
  61. Reeve, J., Jang, H. R., Shin, S. H., Ahn, J. S., Matos, L., & Gargurevich, R. (2022). When students show some initiative: Two experiments on the benefits of greater agentic engagement. Learning and Instruction, 80(July 2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101564
  62. Reeve, J., Jang, H. R., Cheon, S. H., Moss, J. D., Ko, H. R., & Jang, H. (2023). Extending self-determination theory’s dual-process model to a new tripartite model to explain diminished functioning. Motivation and Emotion, 47(5), 691–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-023-10019-0
  63. Reeve, J., & Shin, S. H. (2020). How teachers can support students’ agentic engagement. Theory into Practice, 59(2), 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1702451
  64. Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
  65. Reeve, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Assor, A., Ahmad, I., Cheon, S. H., Jang, H., Kaplan, H., Moss, J. D., Olaussen, B. S., & Wang, C. K. J. (2014). The beliefs that underlie autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching: A multinational investigation. Motivation and Emotion, 38(1), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9367-0
  66. Rieber, L. P. (2017). Participation patterns in a massive open online course (MOOC) about statistics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1295–1304. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12504
  67. Rigby, S. C., Deci, E. L., Patrick, B. C., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Beyond the intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy: Self-determination in motivation and learning. Motivation and Emotion, 16(3), 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991650
  68. Ryan, R., Kuhl, J., & Deci, E. (1997). Nature and Autonomy: An Organizational View of Social and Neurobiological Aspects of Self-Regulation in Behavior and Development. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 701–728. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579497001405
  69. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
  70. Sakinah, S. (2023). Peer Relatedness sebagai Moderator Hubungan antara Teacher Autonomy Support dan Agentic Engagement peserta didik SMA Setelah Pandemi Covid-19.
  71. Sakinah, S., Primana, L., Aurelian, E. S., & Kusumadewi, K. D. (2023). Agentic Engagement Peserta Didik Selama Pembelajaran Daring: Pengaruh Motivasi Intrinsik Dan Perceived Teacher Autonomy Support. Journal of Psychological Science and Profession, 7(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.24198/jpsp.v7i1.44880
  72. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. In Journal of Educational Psychology (Vol. 85, Issue 4, pp. 571–581). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571
  73. Statista Indonesia. (2023). Dropout rate in Indonesia in 2023.
  74. Su, Y. L., & Reeve, J. (2011). A Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Intervention Programs Designed to Support Autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 159–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9142-7
  75. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
  76. Truta, C., Parv, L., & Topala, I. (2018). Academic engagement and intention to drop out: Levers for sustainability in higher education. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(12), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124637
  77. Veiga, F. H., García, F., Reeve, J., Wentzel, K., & García, Ó. (2015). When adolescents with high self-concept lose their engagement in school. Revista de Psicodidactica, 20(2), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1387/RevPsicodidact.12671
  78. Verstege, S., Pijeira-Díaz, H. J., Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Diederen, J. (2019). Relations between students’ perceived levels of self-regulation and their corresponding learning behavior and outcomes in a virtual experiment environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 100, 325–334. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.020
  79. Waffenschmidt, S., Knelangen, M., Sieben, W., Bühn, S., & Pieper, D. (2019). Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(1), 132. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0782-0
  80. Zendarski, N., Guo, S., Sciberras, E., Efron, D., Quach, J., Winter, L., Bisset, M., Middeldorp, C. M., & Coghill, D. (2020). Examining the Educational Gap for Children with ADHD and Subthreshold ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 26(2), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054720972790
  81. Zepke, N. (2018). Student engagement in neo-liberal times: what is missing? Higher Education Research & Development, 37(2), 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1370440
  82. Zhou, X., Chai, C. S., Jong, M. S.-Y., & Xiong, X. B. (2021). Does Relatedness Matter for Online Self-regulated Learning to Promote Perceived Learning Gains and Satisfaction? The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30(3), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00579-5
Check for updates

Issue

Downloads

PDF

Statistic

Abstract Views
: 49 times
PDF
: 13 times