Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by VGTU Press. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. The material cannot be used for commercial purposes. B u s i n e s s, Ma n ag e M e n t a n d e d u c at i o n ISSN 2029-7491 / eISSN 2029-6169 2015, 13(2): 175–202 doi:10.3846/bme.2015.297 Relationship Model of peRsonality, CoMMuniCation, student engageMent, and leaRning satisfaCtion dorothea Wahyu aRiani Department of Management, Economics Faculty, Maranatha Christian University, Jl. Prof. Drg. Suria Sumantri No. 65, Bandung, Indonesia E-mail: ariani1338@gmail.com Received 10 November 2015; accepted 24 November 2015 abstract. This study aims to examine the engagement as a mediating variable of the relationship between personality and communication with satisfaction. This study was conducted at business school in Indonesia with 307 students who are still active as a respondent. Survey research was conducted over four months by questionnaire that has been well-established that was taken and modified from previous studies. The results of this study indicate that student engagement me- diates the relationship between personality and communication as independent variables and satisfaction as the dependent variable. Extroversion personality and communication significantly positive effect on student engagement in all three dimensions (vigor, dedication, and absorption). In addition, this study also showed that engagement and satisfaction are two different variables, but correlated, and there was no difference in terms of gender differences involvement. Keywords: big five personality, internal communication, student engagement, learning satisfaction. JEL Classification: I23, M12, O15. 1. Introduction Engagement is a relatively new concept, it is important, and much in demand by re- searchers and practitioners (Macey, Schneider 2008; Rothman, S., Rothman, S. (Jr.) 2010; Harter et al. 2002; Bakker et al. 2008). According to Saks (2006), it appears the concept of engagement of practitioners, instead of academics, so that only a few re- searchers who conduct research on engagement. However, an engagement gets a great attention both from the company as well as in the academic literature (Saks, Gruman 2011; Rich et al. 2010; Saks 2006). This is because engagement has been described as a key control in attitudes, behavior, and performance of individuals in order to improve performance, productivity, ownership, financial, and income of the shareholders of the company (Harter et al. 2002; Bates 2004; Richman 2006). In other words, engagement is a key of the organization’s success in winning the competition. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3846/bme.2015.297 mailto:ariani1338@gmail.com 176 D. W. Ariani. Relationship model of personality, communication, student engagement, and learning satisfaction Research of Engagement has been done in the company, but a little research has been conducted on the engagement of an educational institution. Comprehension of engagement has been escalated not only on company, but also on student engagement in school and engagement in learning. The engagement associated with achievement in school and a favorable outcome such as social welfare and psychological well-being (Crick, Goldspink 2014). Students that are involved will be motivated and will increase the complexity of a college. These complexities include of education funding, account- ability, and oversight of education to improve the quality education received by students (Devlin et al. 2009). Definition and understanding of engagement is overlap with other constructs such as organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (Saks 2006). How- ever, in the academic literature, engagement is defined as construct different and unique. Engagement includes components of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral related to performance in accordance with the role of the individual. Engagement is related with a variety of results that can be enjoyed by the organization, such as loyalty, increased pro- ductivity and profitability, as well as labor turnover, absenteeism, and desire out of the organization declined (Harter et al. 2002). In addition, the engagement also has positive impact on psychological well-being (May et al. 2004; Rothman, S., Rothman, S. (Jr.) 2010). Schaufeli et al. (2002a) and Bakker et al. (2008) said that engagement is a state of positive thinking and excited associated with a task or job and is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigor is strength or energy or power, excitement, desire to invest his efforts on the job. Dedication is an ability not to get tired easily, and per- severing in the face of difficulty, devotion, or sacrifice which is a strong engagement in the work, enthusiasm, and a sense of pride, inspired, and challenged. Absorption is pleasant conditions in the job or task, felt the time passed so quickly, and was not able to shed jobs or duties. Macey and Schneider (2008) stated that the engagement is a job satisfaction and also a few studies have attempted to distinguish between engagement and job satisfaction. However engagement can also increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment, as well as decrease the desire to leave the organization (Saks 2006). Based on the results of previous studies, engagement associated with work such as job satisfaction (Yakin, Erdil 2012). According to Luthans and Peterson (2002), engagement is a significant predictor for the desired organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction, productivity, profitability, and the desire to remain in the organization. In educational institutions, job satisfaction can be referred to as the satisfaction of learning or learning satisfaction. Furthermore, the engagement is the attitudes and behavior (Little, B., Little, P. 2006). The behavior of individuals is determined by situational or environmental factors or work and personal factors (Rothman, Welsh 2013). In Theory of Organizational Be- havior, both situational factors and personal factors or dispositional is an antecedent in 177 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(2): 175–202 explaining behavior in the workplace such as engagement. Previous research states that the interaction between situational factors and personal factors such as personality will influence the attitudes and behaviors (Ilies et al. 2006; Bono, Judge 2003; Judge et al. 2005). Some previous research has examined the relationship between engagement and personality. Langelaan et al. (2006) examined the relationship between engagement and burnout with dimensions of emotional instability personality (neuroticism) and openness personality dimensions (extraversion). Kim et al. (2009) suggested a negative relation- ship between engagement and emotional instability and a positive correlation between the personality dimensions of conscientiousness and engagement. Bakker et al. (2012) showed that conscientiousness positively related to engagement. Some researchers claim that the concept of engagement is an individual’s emo- tional commitment to the organization to engage psychologically, have the desire and ability to achieve the goals and objectives of the organization (Iyer, Israel 2012). This is what requires all members of the organization to develop internal communication. Clear communication and information within the organization will allow individuals to work and achieve its objectives are aligned with organizational goals. Communication within the organization is also associated with engagement. Employees will see their leaders can be trusted if they can communicate intensively and can provide accurate information. Sufficient explanation accompanied by appropriate feedback and quickly will increase confidence (Folger, Konovsky 1989). Leader who is able to explain the decision will increase the confidence of her followers (Konovsky, Cropanzano 1991; Sapienza, Korsgaard 1996). Open communication will encourage leaders convey ideas and thoughts so as to increase the trust. Lack of communication and information will lead to distrust, dissatisfaction, indifference, and the desire to leave the organization (turnover intention) and cause personal crisis. Therefore, to build engagement, internal communications required a clear, honest, concise, and timely. Social Exchange Theory is a prominent theoretical paradigm in understanding the relationships in the workplace and employee attitudes (Cropanzano, Mitchell 2005). Meanwhile, the relationship between personality variables and the behavior of individu- als in the workplace is based on the Self-Identity Theory (Karanges et al. 2014). The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between constructs based on the principles of social exchange and identity. This study has built a model of relations, where the three-dimensional of engagement would mediate the relationship between conscientiousness personality and extraversion personality as well as the communication as the independent variables and satisfaction as the dependent variable. Furthermore, this study also tested whether the engagement and satisfaction are two different con- structs given previous research suggest that both constructs are overlapping each other. Engagement research was important, because the engagement will create prosperity, productivity, and improved performance and organization (Harter et al. 2002; Schaufeli et al. 2002a). Attention of researchers on engagement escalated of recent times both in 178 D. W. Ariani. Relationship model of personality, communication, student engagement, and learning satisfaction academics and practitioners. Definition of engagement also varies among practitioners and academics. The researchers describe the engagement as individuals scientifically motivated (Steele, Fullagar 2009). Individuals engaged in the activity for its own sake, not as a consequence of extrinsic (Schaufeli et al. 2002b). Research on engagement in academic field is very limited. Nevertheless, research findings indicate that students can also experience engagement in academic activities. This research was conducted at busi- ness school in Indonesia with undergraduate students who are still active as respondents. 2. Theoretical review and hypothesis testing 2.1. Engagement The term engagement in the work was first presented by Kahn (1990) describes a new approach to motivating employees using the view that behavior is based on three di- mensions: the physical engagement, emotional engagement, and cognitive engagement. According to Kahn (1990), engagement is a multidimensional construct. Individuals may be engaged in emotional, cognitive, and physical. Psychological engagement and organizational behavior require emotional and cognitive engagement. To be emotion- ally engaged, individuals will establish meaningful relationships with others, such as with colleagues and leaders, as well as the experience of empathy and concern for the feelings of others. According to Kahn (1990), individuals may be engaged only in one dimension, and not in another dimension. However, the more individuals engaged in each dimension, then the stronger engagement. In all personal engagement, then the individuals will feel engaged when aware cognitively their meaningfulness (e.g., un- derstand what is expected of their organization, how to form strong relationships with co-workers and leaders, or feel a sense in the workplace, and connect emotionally with other people). Engagement is a positive relationship between individual and task or job that is characterized by feelings of meaning, competence, and has influence (Macey, Schneider 2008). Work engagement is positive emotions that can lead to the spirit or energy that will be used individually to devote himself to his work. Individuals who are passionate and dedicated to spend time and energy to carry out his duties because they are too busy doing the job. The concept of engagement in the work has been conceived as a variable that fluctuates from day to day (Xanthopoulou et al. 2009). However, engagement in work showed a relatively stable phenomenon associated with the presence of specific job and continuous organizational characteristics (Macey, Schneider 2008). Individuals who do not feel engaged in the work will disengage and withdraw cog- nitively and emotionally. According to Hochschild, employee disengagement showed low performance, unwillingness to try or effortless, and stiffness (May et al. 2004). Employee disengagement could be due to a lack of social interaction in the workplace, just get a little autonomy in the workplace, and feel that the work is not important 179 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(2): 175–202 (Luthans, Peterson 2002). Individuals who are not engaged personally would always avoided or defensive and tend to avoid its role in the workplace, and do not want to deal with co-workers (Handa, Gulati 2014). Individuals will show its performance when they find that their role means, secure environment, and the availability of resources to carry out its work. Furthermore, other researchers looked at from a different perspective states that stress and burnout is the opposite of engagement and being on the same continuum with engagement (Maslach et al. 2001). Maslach et al. (2001) describes the engagement of the three dimensions of attitudes, namely the spirit or energy, devotion or sacrifice or dedication, and fun. These three dimensions are based on three-dimensional Kahn (1990) which was also presented by Schaufeli et al. (2002a) and Bakker and Demer- outi (2007). The concept of measurement and their engagement is then developed and perceived as an important concept that is necessary to test the validity and reliability of the measuring instrument. Some researchers then developed a measurement tool based on the concept of job engagement (see e.g., May et al. 2004; Saks 2006). Rich et al. (2010) adopted a conceptual framework Kahn (1990) and then develop and test the va- lidity of measurement scale while maintaining the dimensions of physical engagement, emotional engagement, and cognitive engagement. The subsequent researchers then evaluated the concept of work engagement and prepare a meta-analysis to examine the antecedents and consequent of work engagement (see e.g., Christian et al. 2011; Crawford et al. 2010). Work engagement is a relatively new concept and is often debated. Engagement show workmanship and simultaneous expression of individuals in that task behavior indicates to do with work, others, per- sonal condition (physical, cognitive, and emotional), active, and performance (Kahn 1990). Individuals engaged will use her full and formal performance with the power flowing into the physical, cognitive, and emotional of that individual (Kahn 1990; Rich et al. 2010). Individuals engaged not only physically be at work, but more important is the individual psychologically more give attention, integrated, and focused on the work and performance. Individuals that are engaged will be able to finish the job. Individuals with high engagement will experience psychological condition and physical condition of healthy, creative in the workplace, and using all his personal resources, experiencing positive emotions in the workplace, to transfer positive engagement conditions on oth- ers, and receive high performance assessment (Bakker 2009; Bakker, Demerouti 2008; Bakker et al. 2004; Strausser et al. 2011). Engagement is also a motivation that involves the allocation of its resources to achieve its performance. Several studies have shown inconsistency theoretically and empirically, especially in the three-factor structure of engagement and relationship with other concepts (Veci- na et al. 2012). Some researchers suggest that engagement includes three dimensions (Schaufeli et al. 2002b, 2002a). Several other researchers stated that the engagement of only one dimension (Hallberg, Schaufeli 2006). Wefald and Downey (2009) who 180 D. W. Ariani. Relationship model of personality, communication, student engagement, and learning satisfaction conducted research using students as respondents did not support the engagement of the third dimension. Meanwhile, Hallberg and Schaufeli (2006) stated in his research that the engagement could include a one-dimensional or three-dimensional. This study uses three-dimensional engagement developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002a, 2006), Bakker et al. (2008) which included the spirit or energy (vigor), dedication, and absorption. Macey and Schneider (2008) stated that the engagement mediates the rela- tionship between antecedents (such as job characteristics, leadership, and personality) and outcomes (such as task performance and contextual performance). Engagement is better known by practitioners rather than in theory and empirical research. Defining the concept of engagement is also similar to other first known, such as organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior, or is defined as the emotional and intellectual commitment to the organization, or the number of businesses who “devi- ant” individual shown in the workplace. Macey and Schneider (2008) states that the engagement is a concept that overlaps with satisfaction, organizational commitment, and empowerment, even the engagement of a merger of these constructs. Based on this, the research questions that can be asked is whether the three dimensions of engagement mediates the relationship between personality and communication as antecedents to job satisfaction as a consequence of this research? Based on the above discussion, hypoth- esis of this study is offered, that is: H1: There is a difference between engagement and learning satisfaction. 2.2. Engagement and personality Lately, personal factors also included as antecedent construct of engagement (Xantho- poulou et al. 2009). Engagement is a construct that gets attention because it is associated with positive psychological conditions to examine how non-cognitive factors affecting results are positive (Bakker et al. 2008). Judge et al. (1997) emphasize the personal aspect as an antecedent of individual behavior in the workplace. One of the personal factors that influence individual behavior is personality. Personality is a set of personal characteristics that determine an individual’s perception and reaction to the situation. Personality is also an individual choice or individual ways of behaving, thinking, and feeling. Personality enable to measuring actual behavior. The importance of understand- ing personality is personality can affect performance (Tett, Burnett 2003; Barrick et al. 2002) and satisfaction (Arvey et al. 1989). Research on the Big Five Personality is developed by Costa and McCrae. Five personality dimensions include emotional instability or neuroticism, extraversion, open- ness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Neuroticism is an individual’s inability to emotionally adjust to its environment. Neurotic individuals are individuals who experience negative feelings such as fear, sadness, anger, shame, and guilt, has no rational idea, not able to control the conscience, and depressed by the negative emotions that deviate from the environment. Extraversion dimension is excited, optimistic, and 181 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(2): 175–202 happy. Individuals who are extroverts have high social life, active, talkative, and asser- tive. Openness to experience is characterized by imaginative, sensitive, listen to your heart, intelligent, curious, and independent. Individuals are usually open to new and different things, and emotionally upbeat. Agreeableness is the tendency of individuals to become donors or love of neighbor. Such individuals usually feel sorry and want to help others. While of conscientiousness is characterized by being able to control themselves, focus, able to plan and organize well, and be able to work or completing a task or job. According to Barrick and Mount (1991), conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience are associated with the performance. According to Macey and Schneider (2008), engagement is associated with person- ality, especially conscientiousness. Meanwhile, Langelaan et al. (2006) stated that en- gagement is negatively related to neuroticism and positively related to extraversion. Kim et al. (2009) stated that of the five dimensions of personality called the Big Five Personality, only conscientiousness dimension effects on engagement, while neuroticism dimensions and extraversion does not effect engagement. Ongore (2014) stated that his research result showed the all of dimensions in the Big Five Personality affect engage- ment. Personality is considered as an important variable to influence the individual’s engagement in the work. For example, two people working in the same environment can have different levels of engagement for different personality traits. Schaufeli and Salanova stated that only emotional instability and openness are associated with engage- ment, while openness to new experiences even unrelated (Ongore 2014). Conscientiousness dimension is characterized by responsible, dependable, have a plan, manage, persistent, using deep consideration, and achievement-oriented (Barrick et al. 1993). These characteristics indicate that individual with high conscientiousness is an individual who has a positive attitude and motivated in their work. In general, they also have a way to support the achievement of goals and have the ability to hold social interaction. Although individual uses task-based achievement, but the individual who has the dimension of conscientiousness also emphasizes the goal-achievement. Individu- als with a high degree of conscientiousness will have a high citizenship behavior and they are able to perform their role in the workplace. Conscientiousness dimension is positively associated with success or achievement. Individual who have high caution is likely to work to achieve the goal (Smithikrai 2007). In addition, individuals with high conscientiousness convinced that the work has a special meaning for him and experienc- ing higher psychological fulfillment of the job compared to individuals with low levels of conscientiousness (Li et al. 2007), and they are able to regulate behavior in more effective (Wallace, Chen 2006). Conscientiousness personality is a tool to achieve em- ployment success as motivation and a desire to be more productive (Judge, Ilies 2002). In other words, individuals with high conscientiousness demonstrated its capacity to function and develop in a way that is productive and can get things done faster. Furthermore, individuals who have the personality dimension of extraversion tend to be friendly, assertive, talkative, ambitious, and gregarious, so that the person using 182 D. W. Ariani. Relationship model of personality, communication, student engagement, and learning satisfaction the work environment to show life that enable them to fulfill their aspirations and to show his talents (Hurley 1998). Individuals who have an extraversion personality are usually more stable, calm, optimistic, aggressive action indicated by the results of the work is complete and satisfactory. They generally feel comfortable working with other people and have a positive emotional reaction, as well as more comfortable expressing themselves. Smithikrai (2007) suggested a positive correlation between the extraver- sion personality dimension and success in work, especially in jobs that require personal contact. Previous research supported the relationship between extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness with job engagement (Kim et al. 2009; Langelaan et al. 2006; Liao et al. 2013). Based on a wide range of exposure on the relationship engagement and personality, then the hypothesis of this study is offered. H2: Conscientiousness personality has positive effect on engagement. H3: Extraversion personality has positive effect on engagement. 2.3. Engagement and internal communication Ilies et al. (2006) showed that the interaction between personality and situational fac- tors in the workplace affect work outcomes or individual performance. The resources in the workplace such as social support from coworkers and supervisors, performance feedback, the variation of expertise, autonomy, and learning opportunities within the organization positively related to engagement (Bakker, Demerouti 2007). The resources in the workplace or place of learning is situational factors that can play a role both as an intrinsic motivator for helping growth, learning, and development of an individual and as an extrinsic motivator because it is a way or means to achieve goals. Several previous studies have shown a positive correlation between the resources that exist in the workplace and engagement (Schaufeli, Bakker 2004). Research results of Hakanen et al. (2006) showed that information, job control, supervisor support, innovative cli- mate, and social climate were positively related to engagement. Some studies also emphasize and underline the importance of communication for organizational success and showed that the quality of communication in organizations dealing with employees, satisfaction, and motivation (Orpen 1997). Communication and organizational climate will improve productivity. There is a relationship between the amount of time spent on communication and job satisfaction. Organizational communi- cation includes techniques for transferring information, ideas, and assessment from one individual to another. Organizational communication is a communication and interaction among members of the organization. Organizational communication is a dynamic pro- cess and involves techniques, networking, and complex. Organizational communication is important for organizational members to be able to better engage in the organization, convey information, build trust and cooperation with each other, understand and coordi- nate the work, improve communication and learning climate, and to achieve individual satisfaction and all members of the organization (Ali, Haider 2012). This study uses 183 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(2): 175–202 organizational communication as one of the independent variables. This organizational communication hereinafter referred to as internal communication. Internal communication can serve to motivate all organizational members. Good in- ternal communication will be able to improve the morale of individuals, making people feel a part of the organization’s members and will encourage motivation from within the individual (intrinsic motivation), which in turn will improve the satisfaction of the individual. McCleod and Klarke underlined that communication is an important factor that can improve individual performance through engagement (Dromey 2014). Good internal communication will encourage engagement. Individuals also require clarity of communication and information from the head to determine whether it plays a role in accordance with the vision of the organization and its leaders. Good internal communication will improve intellectual ability and creativity of em- ployees to produce benefits for the organization (Mishra et al. 2014). Transparent or- ganization will provide information widely. Openness in communication and providing information indicate a strong relationship between members of the organization and shows the trust between members of society together and leaders. Internal communica- tions provide positive benefits to the organization, such as an enhancement in commit- ment and confidence, which in turn will have a positive impact on relationships with all stakeholders in the organization, including customers. According to Saks (2006), clear and intensive communication will increase engagement. Individuals within the organization will also be engaged when there is a positive relationship with the organi- zation. Welch and Jackson (2007) also stated that internal communication is important in achieving the individuals engagement in the task or job. Leader need to communicate openly and consistently with all his subordinate. Internal communication is part of the organizational context in which that engage- ment will occur (Bakker et al. 2011). Engagement is influenced by internal communi- cation even well designed internal personal communication will improve engagement (Papalexandris, Galanaki 2009). Communication is the psychological needs of employ- ees in which the organization will be able to maintain and increase engagement (Welch 2011). Based on an examination of the relationship between the various internal com- munication and engagement, hypothesis of this study is offered. That is: H4: Internal Communications positive effect on engagement. 2.4. Engagement and learning satisfaction Job satisfaction is an individual assessment of the work or cognitive variables, an affective reaction to the work, or an individual’s attitude toward work (Weiss 2002). Weiss (2002) argued that job satisfaction is an attitude, i.e. positive or negative evalua- tion of individuals to work or work situation. According to Alarcon and Lyons (2011), job satisfaction is different from engagement in two respects. First, job satisfaction can 184 D. W. Ariani. Relationship model of personality, communication, student engagement, and learning satisfaction be experienced at different levels and is a function of perception and affect employment (Organ, Near 1985), while the engagement is the core or the content of such work (Ma- slach, Goldberg 1998). Second, research shows that engagement is positively related to requests or demands in the workplace, not like that job satisfaction is negatively related to requests or demands in the workplace (Saks 2006). Learning satisfaction is also a construct that is conceptually similar to job satisfaction. Learning satisfaction is an as- sessment of the students’ academic and social processes are done for college. Learning satisfaction is an evaluative description of the task or job and task or job characteristics that are characteristic of the attitude of learning, while the engagement is a description of the individual experiences resulting from work (Christian et al. 2011). Moreover, although there are similarities with other concepts theoretically, but differ- ence between engagement and organizational commitment is not easily extinguished in the workplace (Vecina et al. 2012). Empirical research on the engagement reported that high engagement can increase satisfaction and organizational commitment, lower ab- senteeism and a desire to get out of the organization, improve well-being and behavior, improve behavior beyond a role played, improve performance or achievement, increase personal initiative, behavior proactive, and motivation to learn. Satisfaction is an attitude that shows the inner feelings or pride in doing a particular task or job. Satisfaction is how much people loved the task or job. Macey and Schneider (2008) stated that the concept of engagement is overlapping with satisfaction, organiza- tional commitment, and empowerment, as well as the incorporation of these constructs. Some researchers also stated that although there are similarities between these constructs, but the research and theory suggests that the engagement is a different conceptually and empirically with these constructs (Hallberg, Schaufeli 2006; Schaufeli, Bakker 2004). According Viljevac et al. (2012), the limitation of engagement is unclear. Some researchers suggest that engagement also includes other constructs such as satisfaction, organizational commitment, a desire to remain in the organization, and proactive be- havior, and citizenship behavior (Frank et al. 2004; Macey, Schneider 2008; Bhatnagar 2007; Heger 2007). Some researchers suggest that engagement is similar to other con- structs such as satisfaction, positive influence, and organizational commitment (New- man, Harrison 2008). According to Rich et al. (2010), the engagement is an individual who is a holistic concept of the role, while other concepts are similar to the narrower concept of the individual. Hallberg and Schaufeli (2006) also prove that engagement and organizational commitment are different constructs. Wefald and Downey (2009) and Alarcon and Lyons (2011) in his research also supports the idea that engagement and satisfaction are two different constructs. According to Rich et al. (2010) and Hallberg and Schaufeli (2006), correlations between the constructs that are similar to the various variables that are antecedent vari- ables may indicate that engagement, satisfaction, organizational commitment, intrinsic motivation, and positive influence is constructs that are different from each other. Indi- 185 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(2): 175–202 viduals who are engaged will have pleasant emotional state in the workplace or learning places that show a high level of satisfaction (Biswas, Bhatnagar 2013). They will gener- ally do a good job and is able to achieve the target. Previous research stated that there is a positive relationship between engagement, psychological conditions, satisfaction, and a desire to remain in the organization (Handa, Gulati 2014). Saks (2006) also stated that such engagement is positively associated with satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior, and negatively related to the desire out of the organization. However, the relationship between these concepts is still a debate among researchers, and the results showed no empirical research (Little, B., Little, P. 2006). Meanwhile, several studies have shown a correlation between these concepts. Based on an examination of the various attachment relationship work and job satisfaction, the hypothesis of this study is offered, that is: H5: Engagement has positive effect on satisfaction. 2.5. Student engagement The researchers discussed the engagement as a psychological construct in the work setting. Therefore, the researchers were also able to use the engagement in research on college students. In the academic sector, engagement shows the active engagement of students in learning activities which also includes the engagement of the habits and behavior skills (concentration, attention, effort), emotional engagement which includes motivations and feelings (interest and excitement in learning), and cognitive engage- ment that includes beliefs and values (the use of cutting-edge instructional strategies) (Reeve 2012). Underlying psychological constructs employees and students are the same. The difference is only the setting in which the work was done. The researchers did some research on engagement as much research on the attitudes of employees. This study uses students as a source of data to support the research hypothesis regarding the students’ engagement. Students demonstrate the level of engagement through a wide range of academic be- havior. According to Skinner and Belmont (1993), students who have a high engagement showed behavioral engagement in learning activities associated with positive emotional states. They chose the tasks according to the competence or ability, conducting when you get a chance, struggle and concentrate fully in the learning task. In addition, students who have engagement will show positive emotions during the conduct of activities, including enthusiastic, optimistic, curious, and show concern or interest in learning. There are two reasons why students are not engaged, that is because there is no chance or because students are not aware of the availability of facilities in organization for them (Bisson 2007). Engagement can encourage various activities such as exercises, present in cultural events, and more participate in community service or community activities. They are also generally more satisfied with their experiences on campus and looked at the campus is a positive organization. Research results of Wefald and 186 D. W. Ariani. Relationship model of personality, communication, student engagement, and learning satisfaction Downey (2009) showed overlap between student engagement and academic satisfaction. Student engagement is also associated with time and physical energy used by students to undertake activities in the academic experience. In addition, engagement is related with students desire to learn or attempt to subjects, practice, achieve or obtain feedback, analyze, and solve problems (Kuh 2003; Robinson, Hullinger 2008). Student engagement is a topic that attracted the attention of researchers, because based on previous research, student engagement was negatively related to dropping out of school (Alexander et al. 1993) and positively associated with the development and student achievement (Devlin et al. 2009; Marks 2000). This is due to the engagement of more effective in mobilizing interest, energy, excitement, and curiosity of students (Bakker 2005; Patrick et al. 2000). Engaged students will experience positive emotions which includes happiness, interest, joy, enthusiasm, better health, creating jobs and per- sonal resources, and transferring engagement in others (Bakker, Demerouti 2007, 2008). Bakker and Schaufeli (2008) argues that there are still required a lot of research on the antecedents of student engagement in the education sector that is relatively limited. Harris (2011) stated that the dimension of student engagement may include cognitive, psychological or emotional, behavioral, and academic dimensions. Behavioral engage- ment is important activities that are measured by attendance, adherence to rules, and participation in activities (Appleton et al. 2008). Cognitive engagement is associated with a personal investment in the task, which includes the development of skills, setting goals, self-regulation, and commitment to the mastery of an activity (Lee, Anderson 1993). Meanwhile, emotional engagement shows affective and psychological ties to the institutional activities. Emotional engagement shows enthusiasm, interest, excitement, pleasure, and sense of belonging (Marks 2000). Students engagement in academic activities include academic engagement is directly related to the behavior of the learning process and social engagement is the interaction with the teachers (Finn et al. 2003). Student engagement is also influenced by personal- ity characteristics. Based on previous research, the four factors of the five factor model of personality associated with academic performance. The fourth factor is conscientious- ness, openness to experience, emotional instability or neuroticism, and extraversion, while agreeableness personality is not associated with engagement (Caspi et al. 2006). Based on study conducted Caspi et al. (2006), conscientiousness personality has the strongest relationships with academic performance and is the most stable personality, while extraversion personality still has controversial relationship with engagement. Saks (2006) found that student engagement is essentially the same as the engagement of employees and expected to mediate the relationship between situational and personal factors as antecedents and attitudes which in this case is satisfaction. Based on the above discussion, the hypothesis of this study is offered. That is: H6: Student engagement mediates the relationship between personality and com- munication as independent variables and satisfaction as the dependent variable. 187 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(2): 175–202 3. Research methods 3.1. Samples and research procedures This research was carried out on students who are studying at the business school in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Student engagement in campus demonstrated by their engage- ment in the activities of groups, organizations, and other activities aimed at improving skills in leadership, organization and development of various other personal aspects (McCannon, Bennett 1996). Student engagement is critical to its success both on-cam- pus and off-campus because of engagement or participation can help the development of leadership and expertise in the organization. The researchers discuss engagement in the work as a psychological construct in the work settings. Therefore, the researchers were also able to use them in researching student engagement in a university (Wefald, Downey 20009). Underlying psychologi- cal constructs, employees and students are the same. They differ only in the setting in which the work or activities performed. Researchers had previously done some research on engagement as research on work attitudes and employees. This study uses students as a source of data to support the hypothesis of the student engagement. Wefald and Downey (2009) showed overlap between student engagement and academic satisfaction or learning satisfaction. This study aims to examine the effect of the five dimensions of personality variables in particular conscientiousness dimensions and extraversion as personal or dispositional factors and internal communications as situational factors on the three-dimensional stu- dent engagement. This study also aims to examine the influence of these three dimen- sions of student engagement on learning satisfaction or academic satisfaction, as well as to test the three dimensions of engagement as mediator of relationship between personality variables (particularly on conscientiousness and extraversion personality) and communication as antecedent variables with the satisfaction of learning as a con- sequence variable. This study is a survey research using a questionnaire that spread is conducted by researcher. The questionnaire was distributed to individual data collection on respond- ents. Samples were undergraduate students who are active at business school located in Yogyakarta, Indonesia were collected by using convenience sampling method. Students of business school were chosen as the respondents of this study because in general the students understand how to do business. They also have experience in business entre- preneurship courses. The survey was conducted about four months that is in August to December 2014. Compared with four other methods (e.g., survey interviews with direct face to face, a questionnaire was sent or by correspondence, the questionnaire was read by telephone, questionnaires via electronic media, or a combination of survey methods), method of questionnaire survey conducted itself is the best method (Cooper, Schindler 2008; 188 D. W. Ariani. Relationship model of personality, communication, student engagement, and learning satisfaction Neuman 2006; Sekaran, Bougie 2010). Research on personality, internal communica- tion, and student engagement is important to improve and provide suggestion on how to improve learning satisfaction that is not because of the award. Research by the individual as the unit of analysis requires samples with specific criteria or characteristics. Characteristics of the sample are used to convey the character- istics of the sample relative to the population. Samples intended to be representative of the population. The sample size also affects the accuracy or representation of the popu- lation, despite the large sample would indicate a high level of confidence or the greatest confidence in the study. The sampling method used in this study is a non-probability sampling. In this method, the elements in the population do not have the same prob- ability to be selected as a sample in the study (Sekaran, Bougie 2010; Cooper, Schin- dler 2008). Non-probabilistic sampling technique chosen is convenience sampling. The criteria that is used to select the sample is undergraduate students that was still active at private universities in Yogyakarta, Indonesia who met for four months. In addition, this study uses self-assessment. The sample consisted of 307 people (with a response rate of 95.9%) of 320 persons. The amount is based on multivariate criteria, i.e., at least five times the number of items in the questionnaire questions this research (Hair et al. 2006). This study uses a 31 item questionnaire, so it must collect a minimum of 155 respondents. In addition, because this study used factor analysis to test the validity of the questionnaire, minimum number of respondents is 300 people (Hair et al. 2006). One of the characteristics of the studied demographic profile is gender. The respondents received a survey using a pen and paper. Respondents were assured anonymity and complete the survey during study hours. 3.2. Measurement Instruments designed for the unit of analysis at the individual level. Each of the respond- ents in this study were asked to complete four types of questionnaires, the personality (especially conscientiousness and extraversion dimensions), internal communication, students engagement (passion, dedication, and absorption), and learning satisfaction. Questionnaire about personality and student engagement was taken and developed by previous researchers, namely Handa and Gulati (2014). Questionnaire on internal com- munication was taken from Harris (2006), while learning satisfaction questionnaire is taken from Pieterse (2012). Research questionnaires were then modified or adapted to research settings. This modification was associated with changes in the questionnaire by using Indonesian. All scale measured with Likert scale with 5-point ranging from number 1. This study uses content validity to ensure that the sentences on each question can be understood by respondents. In addition, this study also uses the factor analysis as a way to test the construct validity and internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha to indicate the reli- ability of the measuring instrument. With varimax rotation and loading factor of at least 189 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(2): 175–202 0.4 as suggested by Hair et al. (2006). Furthermore, to examine the relationship between independent variable and dependent variable, researcher used correlation. Furthermore, to examine the engagement of a third dimension as mediating variable model of the relationship between antecedents and consequences used structural equation modeling (SEM) using AMOS. 4. Results and discussion 4.1. Analysis of validity and reliability This study used a questionnaire developed by previous researchers to translate from the original language into Bahasa Indonesia. To assess the validity of the measurement items all the variables, researcher tested content validity and construct validity. Content validity was used to assess the instrument measurements performed on the pre-analysis by asking the opinion of experts in the field of Organizational Behavior and Qualita- tive and Quantitative Research Methods. Measuring instrument or questionnaire was tested on 30 respondents who are students who have similar characteristics to the target population of the study as suggested by Sekaran and Bougie (2010). Researcher used factor analysis to examine the construct validity. To further simplify the interpretation and the search for a simpler structure, the researchers used a technique and orthogonal varimax rotation. Factor analysis (FA) was also performed on the constructs under study. Extraction executed factor and every eigenvalue greater than one (1) will be adopted. Varimax rotation performed to reveal each variable. Recorded using a loading factor loading above 0.50 as suggested by Hair et al. (2006) called as a result of testing con- struct validity practically significant. Factor analysis was conducted to test the construct validity. By using varimax rotation and loading factor of at least 0.4 as suggested by Hair et al. (2006) can be achieved construct validity of test results that can be said to be significant. Factor loading values recorded between 0527 and 0.803. Given all the items noted above extracted 0.4, there are three items that turned out to be deleted because it is declared invalid. Items that have construct validity based on the results of the factor analysis were then tested for reliability. Furthermore, to assess the reliability of the measurement items all the variables tested the internal consistency with Cronbach alpha values. Cronbach alpha values of reliability tests measuring instrument in this study resulted in a score of 0.7210 for conscientiousness dimensions of personality, personality dimensions 0.5554 for extra- version, and 0.7743 to construct an internal communication. Meanwhile, the reliability of 0.8490 for the vigor dimensions of engagement, 0.7202 for the dedication dimensions of engagement, 0.7616 for absorption dimension of engagement, and 0.7854 to construct learning satisfaction. Based on the results of testing the reliability of the authors stated that the reliability of measuring instruments of this research is far above the cut-off line in particular internal consistency reliability as recommended by Hair et al. (2006). 190 D. W. Ariani. Relationship model of personality, communication, student engagement, and learning satisfaction 4.2. Descriptive statistics For statistical analysis, the researchers used a series of analysis of the relationship between all constructs or research variables using correlation analysis. Correlations between all constructs or variables used in this study are significantly positive. The rela- tionship between each dimension of engagement is positive significantly, though weak. Correlation between personality dimensions of conscientiousness and extraversion as well as internal communication is positive significantly related, but weak. Meanwhile, the relationship between learning satisfaction and all variables used in this study is positive significantly, except for the relationship between learning satisfaction and ex- traversion dimensions. Standard deviation, reliability scale, and the correlation between all study variables are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Mean, standard deviation, dan correlation among research variables Mean SD α 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Conscien- tiousness 3.7549 0.5239 0.7210 1.000 Extraversion 3.1661 0.6206 0.5554 0.274** 1.000 Int. Commu- nication 3.5562 0.6687 0.7743 0.031 0.004 1.000 Vigor 3.2494 0.5161 0.8490 0.564** 0.384** 0.187** 1.000 Dedication 3.6840 0.5812 0.7202 0.341** 0.114** 0.345** 0.527** 1.000 Absorption 3.2937 0.5634 0.7616 0.227** 0.245** 0.267** 0.535** 0.459** 1.000 Learning satisfaction 3.7883 0.6335 0.7854 0.282** 0.063 –0.088 0.438** 0.504** 0.401** 1.000 Notes: correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Based on Table 1, the mean of seven variables is between moderate and high (mean of 3.1661 to 3.75498) and the deviation is relatively moderate (between 0.5161 and 0.8490). In addition, all the correlations obtained are not too strong. Correlation between conscientiousness personality and extraversion personality are significantly positive (r = 0.274, p < 0.01). Correlation between conscientiousness personality and internal communication is not significant. Correlation between conscientiousness personality and vigor is significantly positive (r = 0.564, p < 0.01), correlation between conscien- tiousness personality and dedication is significantly positive (r = 0.341, p < 0.01), cor- relation between conscientiousness personality and absorption is significantly positive (r = 0.227, p < 0.01), and correlation between conscientiousness personality and learning satisfaction is also significantly positive (r = 0.282, p < 0.01). Furthermore, correlation between extraversion personality and vigor is significantly positive (r = 0.384, p < 0.01), correlation between extraversion personality and dedication is significantly positive (r =0.114, p < 0.01), and correlation between extraversion personality and absorption 191 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(2): 175–202 is significantly positive (r = 0.245, p < 0.01). However, correlation between conscien- tiousness personality and internal communication, between extraversion personality and internal communication and between extraversion personality and learning satisfaction are not significant. Furthermore, the correlation between each dimension of the positive engagement significantly, respectively r = 0.527, p < 0.01 between vigor and dedication, r = 0.535, p < 0.01 between vigor and absorption, and r = 0.459, p < 0.01 between dedi- cation and absorption. The relationship between internal communication and learning satisfaction is not significant, but the relationship between internal communication and each dimension of positive engagement significantly i.e., r = 0.187, p < 0.01 between internal communication and vigor, r = 0.345, p < 0.01 between internal communication and dedication, and r = 0.267, p < 0.01 between internal communication and absorption. The relationship between learning satisfaction and each dimension of engagement is positive significantly, i.e., r = 0.438, p < 0.01 between learning satisfaction and vigor, r = 0.54, p < 0.01 between learning satisfaction and dedication, and r = 0.401, p < 0.01 between the learning satisfaction and absorption. Low correlation between these vari- ables is likely due to the characteristics of the study variables. 4.3. Hypothesis testing results Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is used to test the discriminant validity of the study variables. Specifically, researcher tested the model of seven variables in which conscientiousness personality, extraversion personality, internal communication, vigor of engagement, dedication of engagement, absorption of engagement, and learning sat- isfaction is the different latent factors. The strength of the relationship between con- scientiousness personality, extraversion personality, internal communication, vigor of engagement, dedication of engagement, absorption of engagement, and learning sat- isfaction was examined through Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). The results of relationship model test show that no significant direct effect of all independent vari- ables (conscientiousness personality, extraversion personality, internal communication, vigor of engagement, dedication of engagement and absorption of engagement) on the dependent variable (learning satisfaction). Furthermore, one of the goals of this study was to examine the influence of the vigor of engagement, dedication of engagement, and absorption of as mediating variables in the model of the relationship between con- scientiousness personality, extraversion personality, and internal communications as an independent variable and learning satisfaction as the dependent variable. Therefore, Table 2 presents the results of testing the mediation models using structural equation model with two-stage approach. Structural equation model in this study was designed and tested using AMOS 4.0 software program (Byrne 2001). The structural model is determined by allowing each item of any size to fit on the latent factors. At first, researchers dimensional analysis using confirmatory factor analysis or CFA which covers all measures to assess the re- lationship between latent variables and real products that serve as indicators of them. 192 D. W. Ariani. Relationship model of personality, communication, student engagement, and learning satisfaction Furthermore, the results of testing mediation models vigor of engagement, dedication of engagement, and absorption of engagement on the relationship between conscientious- ness personality, extraversion personality, and internal communication as independent variables and job satisfaction as dependent variables presented in Table 2. The results showed that the hypothesized model fit with the data (χ2 = 24.288; df = 0, p = 0.000; GFI = 0.977; CFI = 0.966). Based on the results of examination model, the influence of conscientiousness per- sonality on each dimension of engagement is not significant (hypothesis 2 is not sup- ported). The influence of conscientiousness personality on engagement is only on ab- sorption of engagement. The influence of conscientiousness personality on absorption of engagement is negative. This indicates that individual that is responsible for learning, have a plan to quickly complete his studies, and they more have a plan, the stronger desire to perform, the absorption of individual engagement is lower. Meanwhile, the effect of extraversion personality on engagement is significantly positive for the three dimensions (hypothesis 3 is supported). The stronger extraversion personality, then the individual will increasingly have a high engagement on vigor dimension, dedication, and absorption of engagement. Furthermore, the influence of internal communication on engagement is also significantly positive for all three dimensions of engagement Table 2. Analisis Model Mediasi Keterangan Beta (β) Critical Ratio Conscientiousness à Vigor of Engagement –0.102 –0.400 Conscientiousness à Dedication of Engagement –0.115 –0.537 Conscientiousness à Absorption of Engagement –2.053 –0.707 Extraversion à Vigor of Engagement 0.980 4.021 Extraversion à Dedication of Engagement 0.725 3.508 Extraversion à Absorption of Engagement 0.990 3.739 Int. Communication à Vigor of Engagement 0.238 2.045 Int. Communication à Dedication of Engagement 0.533 5.384 Int. Communication à Absorption of Engagement 0.402 2.701 Vigor of Engagement à Learning Satisfaction –0.524 –3.676 Dedication of Engagement à Learning Satisfaction 0.978 6.800 Absorption of Engagement à Learning Satisfaction 0.147 1.116 GFI = 0.977 CFI = 0.966 P = 0.000 Chi Square = 24,288 Df = 1 193 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(2): 175–202 (hypothesis 4 supported). This suggests that the better internal communication and the more information a student, the student’s engagement will be higher. The influence of vigor and dedication of engagement in learning satisfaction is also significantly positive, but the influence of absorption of engagement in learning satisfaction was not signifi- cant (Hypothesis 5 was partially supported). This shows that the stronger dedication of engagement, student will be more satisfied. Based on Table 2 can also be stated that the three dimensions of engagement medi- ates the relationship between conscientiousness personality, extraversion personality, and internal communication as independent variables and learning satisfaction as de- pendent variable. This is evident in goodness of fit index or GFI is above 0.90 (hypoth- esis 6 is supported). Furthermore, this study also tested there is a difference between student engagement and learning satisfaction or academic satisfaction. Test results using a paired sample t-test result that there is a difference between learning satisfaction and engagement of the third dimension. Value T between learning satisfaction and vigor of engagement is 12.563, 0.000 significance, between learning satisfaction and dedica- tion of engagement is 2.787, 0.000 significance, and between learning satisfaction and absorption of engagement is 19.966, 0.000 significance. These results indicate a differ- ence between learning satisfaction and student engagement (hypothesis 1 is supported). 4.4. Discussion The behavior of individuals is determined by factors extrinsic and intrinsic factors. This study focuses on academic behavior, especially in the lecture process with two types of antecedents, namely internal communication (extrinsic factor) and personality, especially conscientiousness personality and extraversion personality (intrinsic factor). Engagement is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. Student engagement involves individuals who are controlled by the power of the personal (physical, cogni- tive, emotional, and mental) into its role in the workplace or the right to learn. The results of this study showed a relationship between the three dimensions of engage- ment, although the relationship is not very strong. The results showed a moderate cor- relation between the dimensions of engagement. This shows that the three dimensions can indeed stand alone. Britt, Deckinson, Greene, and McKibben states that a strong correlation between the three dimensions of the show that actually could work engage- ment is a single dimension (Wefald, Downey 2009). In addition, a moderate correlation between these three dimensions shows that the engagement variables, particularly the student engagement is reflective. To previous research showed that variables such as personality can predict engage- ment, but research on the student engagement is still very little (Alarcon et al. 2011). The results of this study support the hypothesis proposed in part. The results of this study indicate that the extraversion personality is an antecedent to the third dimen- sion of engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption). Extraversion personality ef- fect positively and significantly on all three dimensions of engagement. Extraversion 194 D. W. Ariani. Relationship model of personality, communication, student engagement, and learning satisfaction personality characteristics shown with a friendly attitude, talkative, dynamic, intimate, and be happy. Individuals are generally enthusiastic, optimistic, talkative, assertive, outgoing, happy, passionate, and active in various activities. This individual can easily communicate with co-workers and supervisors. Individuals who have an extraversion personality have positive feelings and emotional experience. The influence of person- ality characteristics on this engagement in accordance with research result of Macey and Schneider (2008) which states that the engagement is influenced by personality. Meanwhile, Hakanen et al. (2006) stated that the engagement is influenced by the en- vironment such as communication and information. The influence of extraversion personality on the third dimension of student engage- ment is very significant. Extraversion is going to make students better able to interact with their friends, the teachers, staffs, laboratory assistants, and all other academic community on campus. This is what can lead to greater student engagement on campus, both on passion, dedication or sacrifice or struggle, and the fun or pleasure or absorp- tion to follow the academic process or learning process and social processes on campus. Based on the research results of Furnham and Medhurst (1995) shows that extraver- sion is positively related to engagement or participation in class. In addition, Caspi et al. (2006) study explained that students who are engaged or participate in campus is characterized as extrovert and unengaged students characterized as difficult to control emotional (neurotics). Individuals who open or have extraversion personality tend for looking and enjoy relationships with organized social exchange and feel comfortable in social situations. Such individuals tend to be proactive and always seek social sup- port face various problems. In general, extrovert individuals are the talkative, active, friendly, outgoing, and enjoy the social environment, or often called person-oriented (Dougherty et al. 2008). Meanwhile, the conscientiousness personality dimension only affects the absorp- tion dimensions of student engagement. It was a negative influence. Conscientiousness personality has no effect on vigor and dedication to engage or individual sacrifice in academic activities on campus. However, the relationship between conscientiousness personality and third dimensions of student engagement is significant, though weak. Caution or awareness of students did not make too eager students in the academic pro- cess and less able to push the struggle or the sacrifices made by the students. Furnham and Medhurst (1995) which states that an extraversion personality influence the level of engagement or participation, and does not support the Furnham et al. (2002) research which states that conscientiousness personality effects on engagement. In addition, the results of this study showed a negative influence conscientiousness personality in the absorption of student engagement in participating in academic process and social processes. This is due to the students just thought to follow the lectures and exams, while the social process that followed is a social process that makes the students get an assessment of non-academic activities on campus as graduation requirements. 195 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(2): 175–202 The students generally do not want to get too preoccupied or enjoy the academic pro- cess. This condition is different from the engagement of employees in the workplace. In general, employees are engaged with a vigor, dedicated, and absorption to do the job be- cause its where they work or do not want to leave the organization (Saks 2006; Macey, Schneider 2008; Robertson et al. 2012; Vecina et al. 2012; Hallberg, Schaufeli 2006). The results of this study also showed a significant correlation between the three dimensions of engagement and learning satisfaction, although the correlation is weak. This is consistent with the results Harter et al. (2002) which states that the engagement is positively related to business outcomes and organizations such as job satisfaction, productivity, profits, and income, and negatively related to the desire to get out of the organization. The results of this study also indicate that the engagement of particular dimension of vigor and dedication effect on learning satisfaction. Employees engaged will experience unpleasant emotional condition at work that shows a high level of satisfaction. This is consistent with research of Biswas and Bhatnagar (2013) who con- firmed it. However, the influence of vigor to engagement on learning satisfaction is significantly negative, while the influence of dedication or struggle to engagement on learning satisfaction is significantly positive. This is consistent with the results research of Saks (2006). Furthermore, the results of this study also indicate that engagement mediates the relationship between personality and internal communication as independent variables and learning satisfaction as dependent variable. This is consistent with the results re- search of Macey and Schneider (2008) which states that the engagement mediated the relationship between antecedents (job characteristics, leadership, and personality) and the results of the work (task performance and contextual performance). Therefore, Bak- ker and Leiter claimed that engagement is actually a psychological condition that medi- ates the antecedents and outcomes of such engagement (Bakker 2011). Engagement is expected to mediate the relationship between antecedents and consequences. Strong and rational theory in explaining involvement is Social Exchange Theory which states that the relationship between individuals based on reciprocal independence in the presence of trust, loyalty, and mutual commitment (Cropanzano, Mitchell 2005). When individu- als receive economic resources and socioemotional of the organization, they will feel a responsibility to respond and pay back to the organization through his engagement in the organization. This condition does not fully exist in student engagement on campus. In general, students are engaged because there are clear information and communica- tion and they do have an extraversion personality and was always active in the social environment. Therefore, in line with the opinion of Kahn (1990) which stated that en- gagement is generally based on economic and social considerations. Therefore, because both of these considerations are not on the students, conscientious personality has no significant effect on engagement in the academic process. The students felt he had to pay school fees, then you have in plan formulation goal is to enable students are able to complete their studies on time. 196 D. W. Ariani. Relationship model of personality, communication, student engagement, and learning satisfaction 5. Conclusions Human capital is an important asset in the effort and performance that can determine the success of an organization. Therefore, it is important to understand the factors that influ- ence the behavior of the individual. In Theory of Organizational Behavior, both situational and personal factors are antecedents that can explain the behavior of individuals in the workplace. Engagement showed positive psychological condition of the individual, so that the individuals involved have the spirit, enjoy the work or task, and have an effec- tive relationship with the work or duties (Kahn 1990; Macey, Schneider 2008). Although contextual employee engagement is the same thing with the engagement of students, but in fact setting the job or task, the objectives to be achieved, and the values that affect organizational would make relations with the antecedents and consequences are different. The weakness of this study is the use of cross-sectional data for testing the influence of the independent variables and the dependent variable along with mediator variable not very precise. Mediation model is a longitudinal model (MacKinnon et al. 2012). However, in practice, mediation tests can be done by using cross-sectional data. In prac- tice, testing mediation models often use the preferred method for the evaluation of the mediation process, which uses cross-sectional data are available. This study also used a sample in small quantities and carried in undergraduate students in Yogyakarta, Indo- nesia, so it can not be generalized. Generalizing the results of this research will be done when many researchers to test models of the same relationship in various universities. The results found in this study should be regarded as tentative and require further testing before generalizations can be made. More empirical research is needed to validate the results and conclusions of this study. A larger sample size would make a better result. Longitudinal research design that will measure personality, internal communication, student engagement and learning satisfaction more than one point in time is also important to clarify their relationship. References Alarcon, G. M.; Lyons, J. B. 2011. The relationship of engagement and job satisfaction in working samples, The Journal of Psychology 145(5): 463–480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2011.584083 Alarcon, G. M.; Edwards, J. M.; Menke, L. E. 2011. Student burnout and engagement: a test of the conservation of resource theory, The Journal of Psychology 145(3): 211–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2011.555432 Alexander, K. L.; Entwisle, D. R.; Dauber, S. L. 1993. First-grade classroom behavior: its short and long-term consequences for school performance, Child Development 64(3): 801–814. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131219 Ali, A.; Haider, J. 2012. Impact of internal organizational communications on employee job satisfac- tion – case of same Pakistani banks, Global Advanced Research Journal of Management and Business Studies 1(10): 38–44. Appleton, J. J.; Christenson, S. L.; Furlong, M. J. 2008. Student engagement with school: critical, conceptual, and methodological issues of the construct, Psychology in The Schools 45(5): 369–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2011.584083 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2011.555432 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131219 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303 197 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(2): 175–202 Arvey, R. D.; Bouchard, T. J.; Segal, N. L.; Abraham, L. M. 1989. Job satisfaction: environmental and genetic components, Journal of Applied Psychology 74(2): 187–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.2.187 Bakker, A. B. 2005. Flow among music teachers and their students: the crossover of peak experience, Journal of Vocational Behavior 66(1): 26–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.11.001 Bakker, A. B. 2009. Building engagement in the workplace’ in R. J. Burke, C. L. Copper (Eds.). The peak performing organization. Oxon, UK: Routledge, 50–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203971611.ch3 Bakker, A. B. 2011. An evidence-based model of work engagement, Current Direction in Psychologi- cal Science 20(4): 265–269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721411414534 Bakker, A. B.; Demerouti, E. 2007. The job demands – resources model: state of the art, Journal of Managerial Psychology 22(3): 309–328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115 Bakker, A. B.; Demerouti, E. 2008. Towards a model of work engagement, Career Development In- ternational 13(3): 209–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476 Bakker, A. B.; Schaufeli, W. B. 2008. Positive organizational behavior: engaged employees in flourish- ing organizations, Journal of Organizational Behavior 29(2): 147–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.515 Bakker, A. B.; Demerouti, E.; Verbeke, W. 2004. Using job demands resources model to predict burnout and performance, Human Resource Management 48(1): 83–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20004 Bakker, A. B.; Albrecht, S. L.; Leiter, M. P. 2011. Work engagement: further reflection on the state of play, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 20(1): 74–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2010.546711 Bakker, A. B.; Demerouti, E.; Ten Brummelhuis, L. L. 2012. Work engagement, performance, and active learning: the role of conscientiousness, Journal of Vocational Behavior 50(2): 555–564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.08.008 Bakker, A. B.; Schaufeli, W. B.; Leiter, M. P.; Taris, T. W. 2008. Work engagement: an emerging concept in occupational health psychology, Work & Stress 22(3): 187–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678370802393649 Barrick, M. R.; Mount, M. K. 1991. The big five personality dimensions and job performance. A meta- analysis, Personnel Psychology 44(1): 1–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x Barrick, M. R.; Mount, M. K; Strauss, J. P. 1993. Conscientiousness and performance of sales repre- sentatives: test of the mediating effects of goal setting, Journal of Applied Psychology 78(5): 715–722. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.715 Barrick, M. R.; Stewart, G. L.; Piotrowski, M. 2002. Personality and job performance: test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives, Journal of Applied Psychology 87(1): 43–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.43 Bates, S. 2004. Getting Engaged, HR Magazine 49(2): 44–51. Bhatnagar, J. 2007. Talent management strategy of employee engagement in Indian ITES employees: key to retention, Employee Relations 29(6): 640–663. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01425450710826122 Bisson, K. 2007. A study of personality and student involvement on the college campus: Pell scholars and senior theses. Salve Regina University. Paper. Biswas, S.; Bhatnagar, J. 2013. Mediator analysis of employee engagement: role of perceived organi- zational commitment and job satisfaction, VIKALPA 38(1): 27–40. Bono, J. E.; Judge, T. A. 2003. Core self-evaluations: a review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance, European Journal of Personality 17(1): 5–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.481 Byrne, B. M. 2001. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and pro- gramming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.2.187 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.11.001 http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203971611.ch3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721411414534 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.515 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2010.546711 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.08.008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678370802393649 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.715 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.43 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01425450710826122 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.481 198 D. W. Ariani. Relationship model of personality, communication, student engagement, and learning satisfaction Caspi, A.; Chajut, E.; Saporta, K.; Beyth-Marom, R. 2006. The influence of personality on social participation in learning environment, Learning and Individual Differences 16(2): 129–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.07.003 Christian, M. S.; Garza, A. S.; Slaughter, J. E. 2011. Work engagement: a quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance, Personnel Psychology 64(1): 84–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x Cooper, D. R.; Schindler, P. S. 2008. Business research methods. 10th ed. Singapore: The McGraww Hill Int. Crawford, E. R.; Lepine, J. A.; Rich, B. L. 2010. Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analysis test, Journal of Applied Psychology 45(5): 834–848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019364 Crick, R. D.; Goldspink, C. 2014. Learner dispositions, self-theories, and student engagement, British Journal of Educational Studies 62(1): 19–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2014.904038 Cropanzano, R.; Mitchell, M. S. 2005. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review, Journal of Management 31(6): 874–900. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602 Devlin, M.; Brockett, J.; Nichols, S. 2009. Focusing on university student engagement at the institu- tional level, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 31(2): 109–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600800902825827 Dougherty, T. W.; Cheung, Y. H.; Florea, L. 2008. The role of personality in employee developmental networks, Journal of Managerial Psychology 23(6): 653–669. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940810894738 Dromey, J. 2014. McCleod and Klarke’s concept of employee engagement: an analysis based on the workplace employment relations study, Research Paper. IPA, London. Finn, J. D.; Pannozzo, G. M.; Achilles, C. M. 2003. The “why’s” of class size: students behavior in small classes, Review of Educational Research 73(3): 321–368. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543073003321 Folger, R.; Konovsky, M. A. 1989. Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions in pay raise decisions, Academy of Management Journal 32(1): 115–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256422 Frank, F. D.; Finnegan, R. P.; Taylor, C. R. 2004. The race for talent: retaining and engaging workers in the 21st century, Human Resource Planning 27(1): 12–25. Furnham, A.; Medhurst, S. 1995. Personality correlates to academic seminar behavior: a study of four instruments, Personality and Individual Differences 19(2): 147–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(95)00026-3 Furnham, A.; Chammorro-Premuzie, T.; McDougall, F. 2002. Personality, cognitive ability, and Bbeliefs about Intelligence as predictors of academic performance, Learning and Individual Differ- ences 14(1): 47–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2003.08.002 Hair, J. E.; Black, W. C.; Babin, B. J.; Anderson, R. E.; Tatham, R. L. 2006. Multivariate data analysis. 6th ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International Inc. Hakanen, J.; Bakker, A. B.; Schaufeli, W. B. 2006. Burnout and work engagement among teachers, The Journal of School Psychology 43(6): 495–513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001 Hallberg, U. E.; Schaufeli, W. B. 2006. Same but different? can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment?, European Psychologist 11(2): 119–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.11.2.119 Handa, M.; Gulati, A. 2014. Employee engagement: does individual personality matter? Journal of Management Research 14(1): 57–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.07.003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019364 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2014.904038 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600800902825827 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940810894738 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543073003321 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256422 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(95)00026-3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2003.08.002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.11.2.119 199 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(2): 175–202 Harris, L. L. 2006. The relationship of leaderships’ communication to employee engagement and intent to stay. The University of Minnesota, USA. Harris, L. L. 2011. Secondary teachers’ conception of student engagement: engagement in learning or in schooling? Teaching and Teacher Education 27(2): 376–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.006 Harter, J. K.; Schmidt, F. L.; Hayes, C. L. 2002. Business-unit level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psy- chology 87(2): 268–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268 Heger, B. K. 2007. Linking the employment value proportion (EVP) to employee engagement and business outcomes: preliminary findings from a linkage research pilot study, Organization Develop- ment Journal 25(2): 121–132. Hurley, R. F. 1998. A customer service behavior in retail settings: a study of the effect of service provider personality, Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science 26(2): 115–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092070398262003 Ilies, R.; Scott, B. A.; Timothy, A. J. 2006. The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced state of intra individual patterns of citizenship behavior, Academy of Management Journal 49(1): 561–575. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.21794672 Iyer, S.; Israel, D. 2012. Structural equation modeling for testing the impact of organizational com- munication satisfaction on employee engagement, South Asian Journal of Management 19(1): 51–81. Judge, T. A.; Ilies, R. 2002. Relationship of personality to performance motivation: a meta-analytic review, Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4): 747–807. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.797 Judge, T. A.; Locke, E. A.; Durham, C. C. 1997. The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: a core evaluation approach, Research in Organizational Behavior 19(1): 151–188. Judge, T.; Bono, J. E.; Erez, A.; Locke, E. A. 2005. Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfac- tion: the role of self-concordance and goal attainment, Journal of Applied Psychology 90(2): 257–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.257 Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement of work, Academy of Management Journal 33(4): 692–724. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256287 Karanges, E.; Beatson, A.; Johnston, K.; Lings, I. 2014. Optimizing employee engagement with in- ternal communication: a social exchange perspective, Journal Business Marketing Management 7(2): 329–353. Kim, H. J.; Shin, K. H.; Swanger, N. 2009. Burnout and engagement: a comparative analysis using the big five personality dimensions, International Journal of Hospitality Management 28(1): 96–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.06.001 Konovsky, M. A.; Cropanzano, R. 1991. Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as predictor of employee attitude and job performance, Journal of Applied Psychology 76(5): 698–707. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.698 Kuh, G. D. 2003. What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE, Change 35(1): 24–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091380309604090 Langelaan, S.; Bakker, A. B.; Van Doornen, L. J. P.; Schaufeli, W. B. 2006. Burnout and work en- gagement: do individual differences make a difference, Personality and Individual Differences 40(3): 521–532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.009 Lee, O.; Anderson, C. W. 1993. Task engagement and conceptual change in middle school science classroom, American Educational Research Journal 30(3): 585–610. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312030003585 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092070398262003 http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.21794672 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.797 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.257 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256287 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.06.001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.698 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091380309604090 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.009 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312030003585 200 D. W. Ariani. Relationship model of personality, communication, student engagement, and learning satisfaction Li, I.C.; Lin, M. C.; Chen, C. M. 2007. Relationship between personality traits, job satisfaction, and job involvement among Taiwanese community health volunteers, Public Health Nursing 24(3): 274–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1446.2007.00634.x Liao, F. Y.; Yang, L. Q.; Wang, M.; Drown, D.; Shi, J. 2013. Team-member exchange and work en- gagement: does personality make a difference?, Journal of Business Psychology 28(1): 63–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-9266-5 Little, B.; Little, P. 2006. Employee engagement: conceptual issues, Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication, and Conflict 10(1): 111–120. Luthans, F.; Peterson, S. J. 2002. Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy: implications’ for managerial effectiveness and development, Journal of Management 21(5): 376–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621710210426864 Macey, W. H.; Schneider, B. 2008. The meaning of employee engagement, Industrial Organizational Psychology 1(1): 1–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x MacKinnon, D. P.; Coxe, S.; Baraldi, A. H. 2012. Guidelines for the investigation of mediating vari- ables in business research, Journal of Business and Psychology 27(1): 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9248-z Marks, H. M. 2000. Student engagement in instructional activity: patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years, American Educational Research Journal 37(1): 153–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312037001153 Maslach, C.; Goldberg, J. 1998. Prevention of burnout: new psychology, Applied & Preventive Psy- chology 7(1): 63–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0962-1849(98)80022-X Maslach, C.; Schaufeli, W. B.; Leiter, M. P. 2001. Job burnout, Annual Review of Psychology 52(1): 397–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397 May, D. R.; Gilson, R. L.; Harter, L. M. 2004. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work, Journal of Occupational & Organi- zational Psychology 77(1): 11–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317904322915892 McCannon, M.; Bennett, P. 1996. Choosing to participate or not: a study of college students’ involve- ment in student organizations, College Student Journal 30(3): 31–315. Mishra, K.; Boynton, L.; Mishra, A. 2014. Driving employee engagement: the expanded role of inter- nal communications, International Journal of Business Communication 51(2): 183–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525399 Neuman, W. L. 2006. Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. 6th ed. New York: Allyn and Bacon. Newman, D. A.; Harrison, D. A. 2008. Been there bottled that are state and behavioral work engage- ment new and useful construct wine?, Individual and Organizational Psychology 1(1): 31–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00003.x Ongore, O. 2014. A study of relationship between personality traits and job engagement, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 141: 1315–1319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.226 Organ, D. W.; Near, J. P. 1985. Cognition and affect in measures of job satisfaction, International Journal of Psychology 20(2): 241–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207598508247735 Orpen, C. 1997. The interactive effects of communication quality and job involvement on managerial satisfaction and work motivation, Journal of Psychology 131(5): 519–522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223989709603540 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1446.2007.00634.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-9266-5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621710210426864 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9248-z http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312037001153 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0962-1849(98)80022-X http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397 http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317904322915892 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525399 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00003.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207598508247735 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223989709603540 201 Business, Management and Education, 2015, 13(2): 175–202 Papalexandris, N.; Galanaki, E. 2009. Leadership’s impact on employee engagement: differences among entrepreneurs and professional CEOs, Leadership & Organizational Development Journal 30(4): 365–385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730910961685 Patrick, B. C.; Hisley, J.; Kempler, T. 2000. What’s everybody so excited about? the effects of teacher enthusiasm on student intrinsic motivation and vitality, Journal of Experimental Education 68(3): 217–236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220970009600093 Pieterse, L. E. 2012. The relationship between transformational leadership, employee engagement, job characteristics, and intention to quit. Stellenbosch University, Kota. Reeve, J. 2012. A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement, in S. C. Christenson, et al. (Eds.). Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer Science + Business Media, 149–172. Rich, B. L.; Lepine, J. A.; Crawford, E. R. 2010. Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance, Academy of Management Journal 53(3): 617–635. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988 Richman, A. 2006. Everyone wants an engaged workforce: how can you create it?, Workspan 49(1): 36–39. Robertson, I. T.; Birch, A. J.; Cooper, C. L. 2012. Job and work attitudes, engagement, and employee performance: where does psychological well being fit in?, Leadership & Organizational Development Journal 33(3): 224–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731211216443 Robinson, C. C.; Hullinger, H. 2008. New benchmarks in higher education: student engagement in online learning, Journal of Education to Business Nov/Dec: 101–108. Rothman, S.; Rothman, S. (Jr). 2010. Factors associated with employee engagement in South Africa, South Africa Journal of Individual Psychology 30(1): 1–12. Rothman, S.; Welsh, C. 2013. Employee engagement: the role of psychological conditions, Manage- ment Dynamics 23(1): 14–25. Saks, A. M. 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement, Journal of Managerial Psychology 21(7): 600–619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169 Saks, A. M.; Gruman, J. A. 2011. Getting newcomers engaged: the role of socialization tactics, Journal of Managerial Psychology 26(5): 283–402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941111139001 Sapienza, H. J.; Korsgaard, M. A. 1996. Managing investor relations: the impact of procedural justice in establishing and sustaining investor support, Academy of Management Journal 39(3): 544–574. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256655 Schaufeli, W. B.; Bakker, A. B. 2004. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study, Journal of Organizational Behavior 25(3): 293–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.248 Schaufeli, W. B.; Bakker, A. B.; Salanova, M. 2006. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study, Educational and Psychological Measurement 66(4): 701– 716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471 Schaufeli, W. B.; Martinez, I. M.; Marques, P. A.; Salanova, M.; Bakker, A. B. 2002b. Burnout and engagement in university students: a cross-national study, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 33(5): 464–481. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033005003 Schaufeli, W. B.; Salanova, M.; Gonzalez, R. V.; Bakker, A. B. 2002a. The measurement of engage- ment and burnout. a two sample confirmatory factor analytic-approach, Journal of Happiness Studies 3(1): 71–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730910961685 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220970009600093 http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731211216443 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941111139001 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.248 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033005003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326 202 D. W. Ariani. Relationship model of personality, communication, student engagement, and learning satisfaction Sekaran, U.; Bougie, R. 2010. Research methods for business: a skill building approach. 5th ed. Sin- gapore: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Skinner, E. A.; Belmont, M. J. 1993. Motivation in the classroom: reciprocal effects of teacher behav- ior and student engagement across the school year, Journal of Educational Psychology 85(4): 571–581. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571 Smithikrai, C. 2007. Personality traits and job success: an investigation in that sample, International Journal of Selection and Assessment 15(1): 134–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00372.x Steele, J. P.; Fullagar, C. J. 2009. Facilitators and outcomes of student engagement in college setting, The Journal of Psychology 143(1): 5–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.143.1.5-27 Strausser, D. R.; O-Sullivan, D.; Wang, A. W. K. 2011. Work personality: work engagement and aca- demic effort in group of college students, Journal of Employment Counseling 49(2): 50–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1920.2012.00006.x Tett, R. P.; Burnett, D. D. 2003. A personality trait–based interactionist model of job performance, Journal of Applied Psychology 88(3): 500–517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500 Vecina, M. L.; Chacon, F.; Sueiro, M.; Barron, A. 2012. Volunteer engagement: does engagement predict the degree of satisfaction among new volunteers and the commitment of those who have been active longer? Applied Psychology: An International Review 61(1): 130–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00460.x Viljevac, A.; Cooper-Thomas, H. D.; Saks, A. M. 2012. An investigation into the validity of two measure of work engagement, The International Journal of Human Resource Management 23(17): 2642–3709. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.639542 Wallace, C.; Chen, G. 2006. A multilevel integration of personality, climate, self-regulation, and per- formance, Personnel Psychology 59(3): 529–557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00046.x Wefald, A. J.; Downey, R. G. 2009. Construct dimensionality of engagement and its relation with satisfaction, The Journal of Psychology 143(1): 91–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.143.1.91-112 Weiss, H. M. 2002. Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs, and affective ex- periences, Human Resource Management Review 12(2): 173–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00045-1 Welch, M. 2011. The evolution of the employee engagement concept: communication implications, Corporate Communication: An International Journal 16(4): 328–346. Welch, M.; Jackson, P. R. 2007. Rethinking internal communication: a stakeholder approach, Corpo- rate Communication: An International Journal 12(2): 177–198. Xanthopoulou, D.; Bakker, A. B.; Demerouti, E.; Schaufeli, W. B. 2009. Reciprocal relationships be- tween job resources, personal resources, and work engagement, Journal of Vocational Behavior 74(3): 235–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.11.003 Yakin, M.; Erdil, O. 2012. Relationship between self-efficacy and work engagement and the effects on job satisfaction: a survey on certified public, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Science 58 (October): 370–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1013 dorothea Wahyu aRiani. Dr S.E., M.T., senior lecturer and researcher of Maranatha Christian University, Indonesia; board member of Indonesian Economics Graduate – branch Yogyakarta; board member of Inspect Researchers Yogyakarta. Research interest: human resource management, organi- zational behavior, management of education, operations management, organizational development. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00372.x http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.143.1.5-27 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1920.2012.00006.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00460.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.639542 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00046.x http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.143.1.91-112 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00045-1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.11.003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1013