Defining and Measuring the Undefinable: A Methodological Systematic Review of Student Engagement Operationalization in Hybrid Higher Education Research (2019-2025)

The widespread adoption of hybrid learning models in higher education following the COVID-19 pandemic has intensified longstanding challenges in defining and measuring student engagement. This methodological systematic review examines how student engagement has been conceptualized and operationalized in hybrid higher education research published between 2019 and 2025. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we screened 1,867 records across five databases (ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ProQuest), resulting in 66 included studies. Results reveal that while Fredricks et al.'s (2004) tripartite framework (behavioral, 84.8%; cognitive, 75.8%; emotional, 74.2%) remains dominant, significant methodological concerns persist. Critically, 65.2% of studies employed custom-developed or adapted scales rather than validated instruments, and only 19.7% used established measures. Misalignment between conceptual definitions and measurement approaches was prevalent, particularly for cognitive and agentic engagement dimensions. Social (12.1%) and agentic (7.6%) engagement remain underexplored despite their theoretical relevance to hybrid contexts. Geographically, research concentrates in Asia (50.0%) and North America (27.3%), limiting generalizability. The review identifies urgent needs for: (a) validated, hybrid-specific engagement instruments; (b) clearer alignment between theoretical frameworks and measurement approaches; (c) greater attention to emerging dimensions including social and agentic engagement; and (d) improved reporting of hybrid learning model specifications. We provide methodological recommendations to enhance construct validity, cross-study comparability, and cumulative knowledge building in this rapidly expanding field.

Student engagement, Hybrid learning, Measurement, Operationalization

1. Acosta-Gonzaga, E., & Fabiola Ruiz-Ledesma, E. (2022). Students’ Emotions and Engagement in the Emerging Hybrid Learning Environment during the COVID-19 Pandemic. SUSTAINABILITY, 14(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610236 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Adams, D., Joo, M. T. H., Sumintono, B., & Oh, S. P. (2020). Blended Learning Engagement in Higher Education Institutions: A Differential Item Functioning Analysis of Students’ Backgrounds. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 17(1), 133–158. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/4a9a5cee-f938-367f-9016-066eb662d9ca [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Adeel, Z., Mladjenovic, S. M., Smith, S. J., Sahi, P., Dhand, A., Williams-Habibi, S., Brown, K., & Moisse, K. (2023). Student Engagement Tracks with Success In-Person and Online in a Hybrid-Flexible Course. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(2), null-null. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/49f52377-dd45-3856-a2fb-c7ec06342e93 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Amashi, R., Koppikar, U., & Vijayalakshmi, M. (2023). Investigating the Association between Student Engagement with Video Content and Their Learnings. IEEE Transactions on Education, 66(5), 479–486. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/740481d7-ddf3-3b7b-a267-b67338ca66f4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Ayub, M., Toba, H., Wijanto, M. C., Parsaoran, R., Sani, A., & Hernita, Y. T. (2021). THE IMPACT OF DEVELOPING A BLENDED LEARNING SUB-SYSTEM ON STUDENTS ONLINE LEARNING ENGAGEMENT. Journal of Technology & Science Education, 11(2), 556–568. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/3d3b6a19-b5ca-3812-af4d-94a2802abfbc [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Azevedo, R. (2015). Defining and measuring engagement and learning in science: Conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and analytical issues. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 84–94. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Baker, S., Gunn Watkinson, M., Honeyman, F., Mowll, J., & Tyulkina, S. (2024). Rethinking student engagement for “hyflex” teaching and learning in post-compulsory settings: acknowledging flexibility and agency needed for unplanned events. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 43(4), 432–447. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/09a79301-e114-3e1d-838d-544b0837e510 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bohórquez, E. B., Khan, S., Battestilli, L., & Fogelman, A. (2023). Measuring student engagement in a HyFlex environment. E-Journal of Higher Education Research, 6(3), 1–9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bond, M., & Bedenlier, S. (2019). Facilitating Student Engagement Through Educational Technology: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2019(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.528 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1–30. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Bowden, J. L.-H. (2021). Analogues of engagement: Assessing tertiary student engagement in contemporary face-to-face and blended learning contexts. Higher Education Research and Development, 41(4), 895–909. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1792845 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Brown, T., Robinson, L., Gledhill, K., Yu, M.-L., Isbel, S., Greber, C., Parsons, D., & Etherington, J. (2022). `Learning in and out of lockdown’: A comparison of two groups of undergraduate occupational therapy students’ engagement in online-only and blended education approaches during the COVID-19 pandemic. AUSTRALIAN OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY JOURNAL, 69(3), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12793 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Campbell, M., McKenzie, J. E., Sowden, A., Katikireddi, S. V., Brennan, S. E., Ellis, S., Hartmann-Boyce, J., Ryan, R., Shepperd, S., Thomas, J., & others. (2020). Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. Bmj, 368. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Cassano, G., Di Blas, N., & Mataresi, A. (2024). Enhancing Learning Engagement in the Flipped Classroom using a Video-Annotation Tool. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 22(9), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.22.9.3259 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Chen, M.-R. A., Hwang, G.-J., & Chang, Y.-Y. (2019). A Reflective Thinking-Promoting Approach to Enhancing Graduate Students’ Flipped Learning Engagement, Participation Behaviors, Reflective Thinking and Project Learning Outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2288–2307. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/250a1030-f5c5-3d3b-9b76-86b8a711ada2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Crawford, J., Butler-Henderson, K., Rudolph, J., Malkawi, B., Glowatz, M., Burton, R., Magni, P. A., & Lam, S. (2020). COVID-19: 20 countries’ higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. Journal of Applied Learning \& Teaching, 3(1), 9–28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Deeks, J. J., Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., & Group, C. S. M. (2019). Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 241–284. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Edumadze, J. K. E., & Govender, D. W. (2024). The Community of Inquiry as a Tool for Measuring Student Engagement in Blended Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): A Case Study of University Students in a Developing Country. Smart Learning Environments, 11(null), null-null. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/da2618c7-5840-3bf0-aa22-1b5f270e4d8b [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Edwards, R. L., Davis, S. K., Hadwin, A. F., & Milford, T. M. (2020). Exploring Student Engagement Factors in a Blended Undergraduate Course. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(3), null-null. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/7825cd31-619b-3a80-9cde-cd358ed9c125 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Feng, Q., Li, W., Zhu, X., & Li, X. (2025). Exploring the Effects of Elaborated and Motivational Feedback on Learning Engagement in Online Scripted Role Discussion. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(null), null-null. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/2e82916e-6723-3b3a-89ea-63ae6457af95 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., Paris, A. H., Fredericks, 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763–782). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Fredricks, J. A., Wang, M.-T., Linn, J. S., 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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Gao, B. W., Jiang, J., & Tang, Y. (2020). The effect of blended learning platform and engagement on students’ satisfaction—— the case from the tourism management teaching. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education (Elsevier Science), 27(null), N.PAG-N.PAG. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/c5a7c29e-2d04-3cd3-85b9-7ecd0ab5f650 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Haddaway, N. R., Page, M. J., Pritchard, C. C., & McGuinness, L. A. (2022). PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 18(2), e1230. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1230 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2019). Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments: A Conceptual Framework. Online Learning, 23(2), 145–178. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/93c653ee-b314-3261-ae0e-1b412432b2fb [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Heilporn, G., Lakhal, S., & Bélisle, M. (2022). Examining Effects of Instructional Strategies on Student Engagement in Blended Online Courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(6), 1657–1673. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/af8cae38-6995-32ee-a571-2aa5e37b1476 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers \& Education, 90, 36–53. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Huang, M., & Kuang, F. (2024). Effective Instructional Strategies to Enhance Chinese EFL Learners’ Engagement in a Blended Learning Environment. Theory & Practice in Language Studies (TPLS), 14(5), 1557–1566. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/6136a798-4098-38ef-ae3e-282c4a19e489 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Jiang, Z., Karim, A. A., & Khalid, F. (2025). Machine Learning--Based Assessment of Student Engagement in Blended Learning:: a Case Study in Chinese Higher Education. Foro de Educación, 23(2), 111–131. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758–773. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Korkealehto, K., Lakkala, M., & Toom, A. (2021). Enrolled or engaged? tudents’ perceptions of engagement and oral interaction in a blended learning language course. The Jalt Call Journal, 17(1), 1–22. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/400c4e1d-5be8-302d-b806-7290b45f366c [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(141), 5–20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Liao, H., Zhang, Q., Yang, L., & Fei, Y. (2023). Investigating relationships among regulated learning, teaching presence and student engagement in blended learning: An experience sampling analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 28(10), 12997–13025. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/6bda80bf-6f6b-3220-a5bf-aaffbdafbb31 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Mohan, J. (2022). Hybrid Learning Models and Student Engagement Post-COVID-19. International Journal for Research in Education, 11(9). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. 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., & others. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj, 372. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Pan, C., Teoh, S. H., & Hashim, K. S. (2024). Exploring the Levels of Multidimensional Student Engagement in a Flipped English Writing Classroom: A Mixed-Methods Study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), null(114), 318–336. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/57a545ba-ed64-3112-9b5a-2478dd2f4034 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., Britten, N., Roen, K., Duffy, S., & others. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme Version, 1(1), b92. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 923–945. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3–19). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Sun, X., Wang, Y., Zhao, G., & Li, L. (2024). Comparing Student Engagement in a Blended Synchronized Course across Campuses: Face-to-Face (F2F), Online-to-F2F, and F2F-to-Online. 2024 4th International Conference on Educational Technology (ICET), 340–345. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Van Der Rijst, R., Guo, P., & Admiraal, W. (2023). Student engagement in hybrid approaches to teaching in higher education. Revista de Investigacion Educativa, 41(2), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.562521 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Van Der Rijst, R., Guo, P., Admiraal, W., der Rijst, R., Guo, P., & Admiraal, W. (2023). Student engagement in hybrid approaches to teaching in higher education. Revista de Investigacion Educativa, 41(2), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.562521 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Willans, F., Fonolahi, A., Buadromo, R., Bryce, T., Prasad, R., & Kumari, S. (2019). Fostering and Evaluating Learner Engagement with Academic Literacy Support: Making the Most of Moodle. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 16(4), null-null. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/15afe0b8-bee4-3ad6-ba67-4752de57af6f [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Yang, C. C. Y., & Ogata, H. (2023). Personalized learning analytics intervention approach for enhancing student learning achievement and behavioral engagement in blended learning. Education and Information Technologies, 28(3), 2509–2528. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/fb2ac50a-2bd0-31e4-a663-254f425b27cd [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Zhang, Q. (2022). Tourism students’ perception of blended learning and their engagement and satisfaction with the course. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 50(11), 1–13. https://research.ebsco.com/plink/f1744c2f-6642-35f6-a1e0-17c9ca9d7b70 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Zhong, Q., Wang, Y., Lv, W., Xu, J., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Self-regulation, teaching presence, and social presence: Predictors of students’ learning engagement and persistence in blended synchronous learning. Sustainability, 14(9), 5619. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study