Student Engagement: Developing a Conceptual Framework and Survey Instrument Gerald F. Burch, Nathan A. Heller, Jana J. Burch, Rusty Freed, and Steve A. Steed Tarleton State University, Stephenville, Texas, USA Student engagement is considered to be among the better predictors of learning, yet there is growing concern that there is no consensus on the conceptual foundation. The authors propose a conceptualization of student engagement grounded in A. W. Astin’s (1984) Student Involvement Theory and W. A. Kahn’s (1990) employee engagement research where student engagement is built on four components: emotional engagement, physical engagement, cognitive engagement in class, and cognitive engagement out of class. Using this framework the authors develop and psychometrically test a student engagement survey that can be used by researchers to advance engagement theory and by business schools to monitor continuous improvement. Keywords: cognitive engagement, emotional engagement, engagement, engagement survey, physical engagement, student engagement The need to investigate student engagement antecedents and outcomes is building. On one side, student engagement continues to be a business education focal point (e.g., Lund Dean & Jolly, 2012; Magni, Paolino, Cappetta, & Proser- pio, 2013) based on the significant relationship with learn- ing outcomes (Gellin, 2003; Pike & Kuh, 2005; Pike, Smart, & Ethington, 2012). On the other side, business schools associated with the Association to Advance Colle- giate Schools of Business (AACSB) face the added chal- lenge of demonstrating “continuous quality improvement” in engagement, to include student engagement (AACSB, 2013, p. 2). Business faculty are therefore challenged to find ways to measure student engagement to demonstrate continuous quality improvements, while simultaneously advancing student engagement research. In this article we discuss the need to develop a stronger conceptual base for student engagement and offer a theoret- ically based, psychometrically proven student engagement scale that can be used at the class or course level. We use Astin’s (1984) Student Involvement Theory and Kahn’s (1990) employee engagement research to propose four the- oretically grounded student engagement factors: emotional engagement, physical engagement, cognitive engagement in class, and cognitive engagement out of class. We con- clude the article with implications of this student engage- ment survey and provide recommendations for future studies to link student curriculum design and delivery to student engagement, and from student engagement to sig- nificant learning outcomes. ISSUE IDENTIFICATION Student engagement is often considered to be among the better predictors of student learning and development (Carini, Kuh, & Klein, 2006). As such, educators should refine their teaching by investigating engagement as a pri- mary contributor to learning outcomes (Pike, et al., 2012). Kuh (2003, p. 25) defines engagement as the time and energy students devote to educationally sound activities inside and outside of the classroom, and the policies and practices that institutions use to induce students to take part in these activities. However, this definition is not shared by all. Steele and Fullagar (2009) stated that there is no con- sensus on the conceptualization and the conceptual founda- tions of student engagement. This may be because recent student engagement research has been dominated by studies that focus on college activities that place university policies and practices related to college students as the focal point Correspondence should be addressed to Gerald F. Burch, Tarleton State University, Department of Management, Box T0330, Stephenville, TX 76402, USA. E-mail: gburch@tarleton.edu JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 90: 224–229, 2015 Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1019821