Journal of Student Affairs in Africa | Volume 10(1) 2022, 65-76 | 2307-6267 | DOI: 10.24085/jsaa.v10i1.2193   65

www.jsaa.ac.za
AFRICAN 
MINDS

Research article

Relational Student Engagement in Co-curricular Spaces: 
Evidence from a South African University
Paul Garton,* Matthew R. Wawrzynski,** Jacob Lemon*** & Sapna Naik****

Abstract
Student engagement is a widely researched and utilized concept to enhance student experiences and 
outcomes. Most research on student engagement, however, focuses on curricular engagement with 
relatively little emphasis placed on the co-curriculum. This study utilizes Case’s theory of relational 
engagement to analyse findings from three focus groups conducted at a university in South Africa 
to better understand how relational engagement is instantiated in the co-curriculum and how the 
co-curriculum differs from the standard academic curriculum in terms of engagement. In particular, we 
show relational engagement is just as important in the co-curriculum, highlighting student relations to 
broader university life, to fellow students, and to communities beyond the campus.

Keywords 
student engagement, relational engagement, student affairs, co-curricular, sense of belonging, focus group

Introduction
Over the last decade, universities in South Africa have focused greater attention on 
student engagement and co-curricular learning to increase retention rates and encourage 
learning beyond the classroom. Generally, much of this focus remains on academic student 
engagement using the South Africa Survey of Student Engagement (SASSE) (Schreiber & 
Yu, 2016; Strydom et al. 2017; Strydom & Mentz, 2010), with a growing body of work 
exploring the experiences and perceptions of students and co-curricular learning in South 
Africa (Garton & Wawrzynski, 2021; Naik & Wawrzynski, 2018; Wawrzynski et al., 2012; 
Wawrzynski & Naik, 2021). 

The differing social, economic, and educational contexts in which South African 
students are embedded necessitate new ways of theorizing about engagement and 

*  Dr Paul Garton is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Quantitative Methods in the Department of Education 
Leadership, Management, and Policy at Seton Hall University, New Jersey, USA.  
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-6889-0570. Email: gartonp1@gmail.com

**  Dr Matthew R. Wawrzynski is Professor of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education in the Department of 
Educational Administration at Michigan State University, USA. ORCID ID: 0000-0003-1092-1367.  
Email: mwawrzyn@msu.edu

***  Dr Jacob Lemon is the Interim Director of Assessment & Analytics within the Division of Student Affairs 
at the University of Utah, USA. ORCID ID: 0000-0003-1732-7256. Email: jlemon@sa.utah.edu

****  Dr Sapna Naik is an Assessment Analyst in the Division of Student Success at the University of Texas at San 
Antonio in San Antonio, Texas, USA. ORCID ID: 0000-0001-9668-4643. Email: sapnaik@gmail.com

mailto:mwawrzyn@msu.edu
mailto:jlemon@sa.utah.edu
mailto:sapnaik@gmail.com


66   Journal of Student Affairs in Africa | Volume 10(1) 2022, 65-76 | 2307-6267 | DOI: 10.24085/jsaa.v10i1.2193

co-curricular learning, grounded in prior South African research. Using a theoretical 
approach to engagement that explicitly foregrounds relational contexts (Case, 2007, 2008), 
we conducted focus group interviews at a comprehensive South African university (SAU, 
a pseudonym) in the Eastern Cape province to examine how students perceive and benefit 
from student engagement in co-curricular experiences. Along with validating aspects of 
Case’s (2007) theory of relational engagement, we identified new types of relations students 
hold pertinent to their sense of belonging from co-curricular experiences.

Literature Review
In one of the most widely used definitions of student engagement, Kuh (2003) described 
engagement as both the individual effort students put in toward their education and 
the organisational structures facilitating student experiences. Considered holistically, 
these educational activities and efforts can involve classroom as well as out-of-classroom 
experiences. Although aspects of student engagement can certainly transcend geographical 
boundaries, Kuh’s student engagement concepts were primarily developed based on 
traditional-aged students in United States higher education. 

Others, however, have sought to develop more culturally relevant student engagement 
frameworks. More specifically, Case (2007) discussed student engagement in the South 
African context as a form of relationship students develop with different aspects of their 
university and broader ecological context. Whereas Kuh’s (2003) definition focused on 
inputs from individual students and the university, Case (2007) emphasised the connections 
between students as well as between students and their educational contexts. That said, 
inputs are still an important factor for Case (2007), especially in the form of students’ 
motivations and efficacies. 

Student engagement is a key component of the social justice mission of student affairs 
in South Africa because it combines academic and relational contexts, reducing the barriers 
to knowledge. Integrating academic and relational contexts broadens epistemological access 
by creating spaces for co-constructed knowledge and personal capacity building (Schreiber, 
2014), which influences sense of belonging. Moreover, connecting engagement and sense 
of belonging has great educational value in the South African context, particularly for 
non-traditional students (Wisker & Masika, 2017), who can be defined as “mostly black 
students from disadvantaged family and school backgrounds” (Jama et al., 2008, p. 998). 
A strong sense of belonging to the university community generates opportunities for 
personal sharing and growth that may be repressed if individuals do not feel welcome or 
safe (Wisker & Masika, 2017). Furthermore, achieving social and academic integration, 
which is connected to sense of belonging for many students, tends to be more challenging 
for non-traditional students than for their traditional counterparts because of limitations 
in resources, such as finances, commuting, and coming from families without educational 
backgrounds (Jama et al., 2008).

Engagement is structured by student motivations, university characteristics, and socio-
political histories and economies (Agherdien & Petersen, 2016; Case, 2007; Ivala & Kioko, 
2013). Indeed, cultural, and hegemonic conditions shape organisational practices and 



Paul Garton, Matthew R. Wawrzynski, Jacob Lemon & Sapna Naik: Relational Student Engagement …   67

environments, such as poor residence hall conditions or inequitable divisions of labour 
(Agherdien & Petersen, 2016). Within these structures, specific influential figures, like 
teachers, can have an impact on the form of engagement (Bezuidenhout et al., 2011). 
Authentic engagement also presupposes students’ own self-awareness, so supportive 
external factors are still dependent to some degree upon the capacity of the individual 
student (Agherdien & Petersen, 2016). 

Sense of belonging 

Given the importance of interpersonal relations for student engagement in South 
Africa (Case, 2007; Wisker & Masika, 2017), sense of belonging to the university is a key 
component of collegiate experiences, which may be framed by historical legacies and 
artefacts of colleges and universities (Sartorius & Sartorius, 2013). For example, one study 
found when racial histories interacted with symbols associated with Afrikaans heritage in 
the built environment, on-campus black students reported a reduced sense of belonging 
(Wawrzynski et al., 2012). Yet, once such artefacts were removed from parts of campus, 
black students reported a higher sense of belonging overall than their white counterparts 
(Naik & Wawrzynski, 2018). Gaps and convergences between students’ expectations and 
actual experiences also determine sense of belonging, with large gaps decreasing sense of 
belonging and convergences increasing sense of belonging (Pather & Dorasamy, 2018). 
For example, if new university students expect certain outcomes or experiences from 
their new student orientation, orientations that meet those expectations will enhance 
sense of belonging, while orientations that differ from expectations will decrease sense 
of belonging.

The antithesis of sense of belonging is alienation, or “a disconnection in the context 
of a desired or expected relationship” (Case, 2007, p. 120). Again, Case (2007) focused 
on relationships as the building blocks of the collegiate experience which was supported 
and expanded by Bezuidenhout et al. (2011) to include distances between expectations 
and realities as a source of alienation. University support for either meeting student 
expectations or providing strategies for dealing with new environments is essential for 
reducing feelings of alienation and increasing sense of belonging (Bezuidenhout et al., 
2011), but institutionalised power dynamics tend to perpetuate alienation rather than 
challenge it (Agherdien & Petersen, 2016). 

Co-curricular involvement 

Student engagement in South Africa is therefore relational and dependent upon university 
support. One of the strategies universities utilize to foster engagement is to create spaces for 
peer-led experiences, such as co-curricular involvement through student societies (Frade 
& Tiroyabone, 2017). These societies serve as social learning spaces that institutionalise 
opportunities for relational interactions and experiences (Agherdien & Petersen, 2016). 
Other programmatic elements of the co-curriculum also centre social learning spaces. Peer 
tutoring, community service or outreach, and residential events are examples of particularly 



68   Journal of Student Affairs in Africa | Volume 10(1) 2022, 65-76 | 2307-6267 | DOI: 10.24085/jsaa.v10i1.2193

high-impact practices built on social learning spaces (Agherdien & Petersen, 2016; Faroa, 
2017; Harrop-Allin, 2017). 

Co-curricular involvement is related to desirable learning outcomes (Frade & 
Tiroyabone, 2017; Naik & Wawrzynski, 2018; Naik et al., 2017). Specifically, increases 
in academic achievement and academic skills like studying and time management are 
associated with co-curricular involvement (Frade & Tiroyabone, 2017; Makala, 2017; 
Wawrzynski et al., 2012). Beyond  academia, career skills and employability (Frade & 
Tiroyabone, 2017; Koen & Ebrahim, 2013) and a commitment to social change (Harrop-
Allin, 2017) are learning outcomes also related to co-curricular involvement. The 
relationship between the co-curriculum and learning is possibly due to out-of-classroom 
experiences disrupting students’ implicit assumptions and changing their mental models of 
society (Koen & Ebrahim, 2013) all while providing peer relational support (Case, 2007).

Facilitating student engagement is not as easy as creating opportunities for involvement, 
however. Numerous barriers exist that bar students from participating in out-of-classroom 
experiences. Financial obstacles stratify participation along class lines, providing potentially 
transformational experiences only to students who can afford to devote the requisite time 
and energy (Naik & Wawrzynski, 2018; Naik et al., 2017). Scheduling conflicts, information 
asymmetries, and language also pose barriers that prevent students from participating in 
co-curricular activities (Schreiber, 2014; Wawrzynski et al., 2012). 

Conceptual Framework
Many studies exploring student engagement, including some in South Africa, have relied 
on Kuh’s (2009) functionalist approach (Naik & Wawrzynski, 2018; Pather & Dorasamy, 
2018; Wawrzynski et al., 2012), which suggests a connection between desired outcomes 
for college and the effort students devote to educational activities employed through an 
institution’s processes, policies, and practices. However, other scholars (Harper & Quaye, 
2015; Jama et al., 2008) note this concept is more applicable to traditional students and less 
so for underserved populations. Because of the non-traditional nature of many students in 
South Africa (Garton & Wawrzynski, 2021; Jama et al., 2008), a more culturally relevant 
framework warrants exploration. 

Many cultural and organisational institutions in South Africa embrace the philosophy 
of ubuntu, translated as humanity, which values collectivism and mutual dependence rather 
than individual needs as core components of human existence (Ncube, 2010). Certainly, 
in the South African context, student engagement is relational because of the personal 
connections students develop with different aspects of their university, educational structures 
and activities, and broader ecology (Case, 2007). Relational engagement is the opposite of 
alienation from the norms and mores of higher education organisations, instantiated across 
the university experience for students (Case, 2008). Similarly, engagement is connected 
to sense of belonging, which generates opportunities for sharing and growth (Wisker & 
Masika, 2017), but may be repressed if students do not feel welcome or safe – which often 
is the case for those historically excluded from higher education. 



Paul Garton, Matthew R. Wawrzynski, Jacob Lemon & Sapna Naik: Relational Student Engagement …   69

Case (2007) identified six forms of relations that can be spaces of either engagement 
or alienation, contributing to learning and feelings of validation or isolation and exclusion: 
“to one’s studies; to the broader university life; to home; to the career; to one’s classmates; 
and to the lecturer” (p. 123). Although Case’s (2007) empirical work focused largely on 
engagement in the classroom, our study advances the theory and applies it to co-curricular 
involvement. Much of what Case argued for, namely positive and validating relationships 
to other students and different aspects of the university, are evident in the co-curriculum. 
Indeed, co-curricular involvement is associated with students’ sense of belonging in the 
South African university context (Wawrzynski et al., 2012; Naik & Wawrzynski, 2018).

Methods
This study took a qualitative approach grounded in focus group interviews with students 
at SAU to better understand their attitudes, perceptions, and experiences of co-curricular 
engagement. Focus groups are a popular means of data collection in higher education 
because of their ability to bring together students with varying characteristics, relationships, 
and experiences, ultimately strengthening the reliability of the gathered information 
(Cohen et al., 2011). Moreover, given the centrality of relationships and collectivism in 
much of South African cultural values, focus groups engage participants in discussions about 
issues relevant to their own experiences (Romm et al., 2013). Focus group data sourced 
from personal, group, and relational contexts also aligned with our conceptual framework 
by seeking to understand all spaces of student engagement. As a result, focus groups 
provided a more comprehensive and culturally competent approach to understanding 
students’ perspectives of co-curricular engagement. 

Setting and source of data collection

The qualitative data for this study were collected as part of a larger research project focused 
on student co-curricular engagement at SAU. Located in the Eastern Cape of South Africa, 
the six campuses of SAU are a product of a merger of two universities and a Technikon 
during the post-apartheid restructuring of South African higher education. SAU is a 
predominantly black, comprehensive university where students pursue study in a range 
of graduate and undergraduate fields including Business, Engineering and Technology, 
Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, Law, and Natural Sciences. Just over half of 
the SAU student body are self-funded, while the rest are recipients of some form of state 
appropriations or financial aid to assist with university tuition and living expenses. A 
majority of students live off-campus and commute to and from campus. SAU is unique 
in that the co-curriculum is heavily emphasised as a space for learning, formalized in a 
co-curricular record. 

Administrators at SAU invited students from a co-curricular leadership and diversity 
course to attend one of three focus groups to share their insights regarding their 
co-curricular involvement at SAU. In May 2017, 18 SAU students agreed to participate in 
the focus groups at convenient locations on three of the six SAU campuses. On average, 



70   Journal of Student Affairs in Africa | Volume 10(1) 2022, 65-76 | 2307-6267 | DOI: 10.24085/jsaa.v10i1.2193

six students attended each focus group session facilitated in English by two of the study’s 
authors, who identify as non-black and are from the United States. All participants were 
black Africans from various provinces in South Africa or a neighbouring country. A 
majority of participants identified as female and were undergraduates in their second or 
third year of university study. Participants represented different faculties including Business, 
Humanities and Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences. The students cited a wide range of 
involvement on campus including community service organisations, intramural athletics, 
and residence life. Semi-structured focus groups lasting 40-60 minutes prompted students 
to reflect and engage in dialogue about their overall engagement, co-curricular experiences, 
motivations for involvement, learning outcomes, and barriers to involvement. The focus 
groups were digitally recorded with voluntary consent from participants and transcribed 
verbatim. In an effort to establish trustworthiness, transcripts were sent to participants to 
review, expand upon, and address any concerns. 

Data analysis

The data were analysed using the constant comparative method and categorized into 
patterns or themes emerging from the interview transcripts (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Three 
of the researchers independently open-coded the transcripts looking for patterns, then 
came together to group preliminary codes and refine them into broader categories. Next, 
three themes were developed from the categories that resonated meaningfully with the 
relevant literature and the purpose of the study. Finally, an inquiry auditor offered feedback 
on our themes and the coding analysis to verify their consistency with the generated data. 
Pseudonyms are used throughout to maintain confidentiality of participants.

Findings
From the data analysis, we constructed three themes of relational engagement: (a) a 
strengthened sense of belonging on campus, (b) intercultural competence gained through 
student involvement, and (c) community engagement and stewardship from involvement. 

Sense of belonging

Students across all focus groups discussed how co-curricular involvement and engagement 
writ large enhanced their sense of belonging in SAU. Specifically, participants described 
co-curricular structures that facilitated finding new friends and expanding social networks, 
as well as an overall openness to meeting and learning about others, emphasising the 
relational aspect of engagement. Rethabile used the language of family to describe her 
connections at SAU, referring to the “sisters” she found. Karabo echoed the use of family 
terms in describing how custodial staff cared for students. Particular environments within 
SAU, such as residence halls or student societies, fostered a sense of community within 
the larger campus community. As stated by Bokamoso, “Being part of a residence when 
you have to do stuff with people you live with, whether it’s your flatmate or … other res 
students, you learn sense of care about the person who lives next door.” Amogelang spoke 



Paul Garton, Matthew R. Wawrzynski, Jacob Lemon & Sapna Naik: Relational Student Engagement …   71

to the value of student societies, saying, “I think the opportunities they offer to students 
… make you feel welcome because you have places where … obviously you don’t know 
anyone. People are strangers to you, but the things like societies and events they organise 
actually make you feel welcome, that’s where you meet friends”.

Students reported building a sense of belonging through co-curricular activities. 
Previous literature emphasised how sense of belonging or alienation were results of 
differences between expectations and experiences (Bezuidenhout et al., 2011; Pather & 
Dorasamy, 2018). Rather than discussing expectations, however, students focused solely 
on their experiences, particularly relational experiences. Moreover, co-curricular spaces 
seemed to structure the relations and facilitate student engagement.

Inter-cultural competence

Along with sense of belonging, participants reported learning related to inter-cultural 
competency. Several students reflected on the transition from relatively homogenous 
provinces outside of the Eastern Cape to SAU where students from across South Africa and 
the world interacted on a daily basis. According to the students, SAU created an open and 
welcoming environment for these types of interactions through events such as Diversity 
Week where students showcased their home cultures. Dolinde felt the residence halls and 
orientation also facilitated inter-cultural interactions and created spaces for students to feel 
welcome: “One of the pulling factors for my coming to SAU is how they are accepting 
of different cultures and people from outside … Even in our student res, how they try to 
integrate and make sure, even during orientation, they try to accommodate everyone, with 
the games and the interactions.” From these interactions, students learned about their own 
cultures in addition to others. As stated by Kungawo, “When I came to SAU, Xhosa people 
are about their culture and they believe about where they come from. They make you 
realise it’s important to know who you are.”

Community engagement

Regarding the final theme, community engagement and stewardship, students expressed a 
desire to work with communities for positive change as a motivation for involvement in 
co-curricular societies. Amogelang spoke about community engagement as a motivation 
for her decision to join a student society, saying, “… to me it was helping and giving 
back to the community because I come from a disadvantaged background, so I know the 
struggles from the township …” Even for students who joined societies to boost their CV, 
giving back became an added benefit. Participants emphasised a passion to continue doing 
volunteer work and engaging with their various communities beyond graduation. For 
example, Siyabonga said, “Involvement in [a non-credit bearing leadership class] taught us 
to do community work … They actually gave me a passion to continue.” This stewardship 
extended to environmental care as well as social justice, often articulating the connections 
between social justice and the environment. As stated by Minenhle, “You want to be a 
good person through helping other people, through caring for the environment.” Students’ 



72   Journal of Student Affairs in Africa | Volume 10(1) 2022, 65-76 | 2307-6267 | DOI: 10.24085/jsaa.v10i1.2193

experiences and involvement thus extended beyond the campus to the larger environment 
in which SAU is embedded.

Participants discussed community engagement and stewardship both as a motivation 
to become involved and as a learning outcome of involvement. Moreover, they 
cited societal problems, such as the racial segregation and poverty in townships and 
environmental degradation, as motivations for becoming involved in community 
engagement. Furthermore, this finding linked to motivations supports previous literature 
that explored the value of co-curricular involvement in developing a commitment to social 
change (Harrop-Allin, 2017; Garton & Wawrzynski, 2021). 

Interestingly, despite literature arguing that co-curricular experiences disrupt 
assumptions and mental models (Koen & Ebrahim, 2013), the non-traditional students 
in our study did not generally discuss how their assumptions changed. Perhaps due to 
the nature of our participants (i.e. being from disadvantaged backgrounds), they are 
already familiar with the historical inequities of the differential development and racist 
policies of apartheid (Sartorius & Sartorius, 2013). If this indeed were the case, then many 
non-traditional students probably have already faced these experiences and do not engage 
in co-curricular experiences to learn about inequities. Instead, involvement is an avenue for 
students to learn how to navigate these inequitable systems by taking action and learning 
strategies for effective change.

Relational student engagement

Although several different forms of relationships were cited within Case’s (2007) relational 
framework, given our study’s emphasis on co-curricular involvement, we note those 
generated from our focus groups, the most resonant being participants’ relationship with 
broader university life. SAU structured these relationships through formal and informal 
co-curricular involvement. For example, Kungawo recounted experiences prior to 
becoming involved, saying “I only went to school and came home and slept. That was my 
life”. SAU-sponsored programmes provided a way for Kungawo to form a relationship 
to SAU beyond the classroom. Positive relationships formed through unstructured paths 
as well, as evidenced by the connections between students and custodial staff. Referring 
to “cleaners and gardening staff,” Karabo said, “… they treat us as their children and they 
mother us”, a sentiment echoed in informal conversations by students and staff members 
outside of the focus groups. These cases support Wisker and Masika’s (2017) claim that 
relationships built from community engagement help students feel safe and supported by 
developing a greater sense of belonging to the university. 

Though Case (2007) focused on relationships formed between students specifically 
within classrooms, we found the framework can also extend to inter-student relations 
in co-curricular spaces. These spaces open opportunities for forming new relationships 
that contribute to learning and engagement. Amogelang spoke to this, saying “… getting 
involved helps you have a different mind. I know when I first came I had my own attitudes 
against some people … but when I decided to get involved … you find something different 



Paul Garton, Matthew R. Wawrzynski, Jacob Lemon & Sapna Naik: Relational Student Engagement …   73

about the person than the thing you came with. Getting involved helps a lot in changing 
your perspective about people.” As demonstrated here, interpersonal interactions are 
valuable for students to combat alienation by learning across differences, thus connecting 
them to a broader support system (Case, 2007). 

In our analysis, a new theme of relational student engagement extending beyond Case’s 
(2007) framework became evident, namely students’ relationships to communities beyond 
the SAU campus. These relationships took two main forms: volunteerism and living in 
a larger community. First, participants volunteered to “give back to” their communities. 
As noted above, Amogelang gave back to the community because she came from a 
“disadvantaged background,” whereas Iminathi, who volunteered at a hospice in the city 
witnessed poverty and “learned to appreciate more of what I have.” Bokamoso and Karabo 
also volunteered at different organisations to see more of the city, with Karabo adding, “… 
it becomes part of your university life,” indicating volunteerism was integrated into their 
studies. Second, participants discussed the experience of living in the city where SAU is 
located. Some participants noted the diversity in the city. Bokamoso particularly noted how 
the Eastern Cape as a whole seemed “more open in diversity” than her home province and 
how this facilitated classroom spaces in which students “learn … about us, our differences 
as students in the class.” Bokamoso further explained, in terms of care for the environment, 
“it’s about more than being a student and getting through your studies and being an A 
student. It’s about being part of a community and knowing you are accountable.” These 
types of experiences reinforced a sense of belonging for non-traditional students who feel 
more empowered as a result of their engagement in campus-related environments that 
promote an appreciation for diversity (Wisker & Masika, 2017).

Relational engagement was the most salient finding and overarching theme across all 
the focus groups. Whereas Case (2007) focused on relational engagement in curricular 
settings, we show evidence relational engagement is equally as prevalent in co-curricular 
spaces. Akin to Case’s (2007) findings in which students had relations to their studies, 
university life, home, career, classmates, and lecturers, our participants also identified two of 
these relations in the co-curriculum. The focus groups discussed three forms of relational 
engagement within co-curricular involvement, two of which are also curricular relations. 
For the first two forms, students described their relationships with broader university 
life and other students in co-curricular spaces. These relations are shared with curricular 
relational engagement as argued by Case (2007). For the third form, students also described 
in detail their relations with the city and communities beyond the campus, extending 
Case’s relational framework to larger settings. Relational engagement in the co-curriculum 
therefore encompasses the university as well as broader communities.

Implications
There are several implications for practice and research as a result of this study. First, student 
affairs staff should recognize the relational characteristics of engagement in co-curricular 
involvement, namely the relationship to the university and to their community, such that 
they are then able to identify the benefits of becoming involved (e.g. sense of belonging for 



74   Journal of Student Affairs in Africa | Volume 10(1) 2022, 65-76 | 2307-6267 | DOI: 10.24085/jsaa.v10i1.2193

students), which then is more likely to translate into success for students. Second, student 
affairs staff can assist students in making meaning of their involvement in co-curricular 
activities by reflecting on the relational nature of engagement and connecting this to 
aspirational goals. In doing so, students may be better positioned to understand how these 
outcomes may help shape their future careers. 

In terms of research, our study provides further support for the importance of using 
culturally relevant frameworks to understand student engagement in different national 
contexts. Further exploration of other components of Case’s (2007) culturally relevant 
framework should be considered in other aspects of South African university spaces. Future 
research should include a more racially diverse group to better understand relational 
engagement dynamics, since our study only included black African participants from South 
Africa and neighbouring countries.

Conclusion
Studies of student engagement generally emphasise high-impact practices and strategies 
to engage individual students in these types of activities (Harper & Quaye, 2015; Kerr 
& Luescher, 2018). This paper provides evidence supporting Case’s (2007) framework 
that student engagement in the South African context is also relational, encompassing 
interactions and strong connections between other students, faculty, and staff. These 
relationships often cultivate a sense of belonging for students both within and beyond 
a campus community. Analysis relying solely on US-based theories applied to other 
contexts may miss, overwrite, or erase experiences unique to different social, cultural, 
and political frameworks. By incorporating theories of engagement developed explicitly 
for South African students, analysis is more accurate and less ethnocentric. The relational 
characteristics of engagement as described by the study participants highlights a valuable 
component of engagement not only in South Africa but perhaps in the United States or 
elsewhere. Future studies on co-curricular activities in South Africa and perhaps the rest 
of the world should consider the importance of relational aspects, acknowledging the 
importance of close relationships and sense of belonging.

References
Agherdien, N., & Petersen, N. (2016). The challenges of establishing social learning spaces at a Johannesburg 

university student residence: Student views. Africa Education Review, 13(2), 64-81.
Bezuidenhout, J., Cilliers, F., Heusden, M. V., Wasserman, E., & Burch. V. (2011). Alienation and engagement 

in postgraduate training at a South African medical school. Medical Teacher, 33(3), 145-153.
Case, J. (2007). Alienation and engagement: Exploring students’ experiences of studying engineering. 

Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 119-133.
Case, J. (2008). Alienation and engagement: Development of an alternative theoretical framework for 

understanding student learning. Higher Education, 55(3), 321-332. 
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. Routledge.
Faroa, B. D. (2017). Considering the role of tutoring in student engagement: Reflections from a South 

African university. Journal of Student Affairs in Africa, 5(2), 1-15.



Paul Garton, Matthew R. Wawrzynski, Jacob Lemon & Sapna Naik: Relational Student Engagement …   75

Frade, N., & Tiroyabone, G. W. (2017). International Survey of Peer Leadership (ISPL): An emerging 
snapshot of the status of peer leadership in South Africa. Journal of Student Affairs in Africa, 5(2), 
113-129.

Garton, P., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2021). Student engagement and social change: Collective leadership 
development in South African higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 62(1), 90-106. 
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2021.0006. 

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.
Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2015). Making engagement equitable for students in U.S. higher education. In 

S. J. Quaye & S. R. Harper (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and 
practical approaches for diverse populations (2nd ed., pp. 1-14). Routledge. 

Harrop-Allin, S. (2017). Higher education student learning beyond the classroom: Findings from a 
community music service learning project in rural South Africa. Music Education Research, 19(3), 
231-251.

Ivala, E., & Kioko, J. (2013). Student levels of engagement in learning: A case study of Cape Peninsula 
University of Technology (CPUT). Perspectives in Education, 31(2), 123-134.

Jama, M. P., Mapesela, M. L. E., & Beylefeld, A. A. (2008). Theoretical perspectives on factors affecting the 
academic performance of students. South African Journal of Higher Education, 22(5), 992-1005.

Kerr, P., & Luescher, T. (2018). Students’ experiences of university life beyond the classroom. In P. Ashwin & 
J. Case (Eds.), Higher education pathways: South African undergraduate education and the public good. 
African Minds.

Koen, M., & Ebrahim, H. B. (2013). Using real-worldness and cultural difference to enhance student 
learning in a foundation phase life skills module. South African Journal of Education, 33(3), 1-13.

Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective 
educational practices. Change, 35(2), 24-32.

Makala, Q. (2017). Peer-assisted learning programme: Supporting students in high-risk subjects at the 
Mechanical Engineering Department at Walter Sisulu University. Journal of Student Affairs in Africa, 
5(2), 17-31.

Naik, S., Wawrzynski, M. R., & Brown, J.. (2017). International students’ cocurricular involvement 
at a university in South Africa. Journal of International Students, 7 (4), 990-1010. DOI: 10.5281/
zenodo.1035953

Naik, S., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2018). Gender, race, finance, and student engagement in cocurricular 
activities in a South African university. Journal of College Student Development, 59(5), 598-613. DOI: 
10.1353/csd.2018.0055.

Ncube, L. B. (2010). Ubuntu: A transformative leadership philosophy. Journal of Leadership Studies, 4(3), 
77-82.

Pather, S., & Dorasamy, N. (2018). The mismatch between first-year students’ expectations and experience 
alongside university access and success: A South African university case study. Journal of Student 
Affairs in Africa, 6(1), 49-64. DOI:10.24085/jsaa.v6i1.3065.

Romm, N. R. A., Nel, N. M., & Tlale, L. D. N. (2013). Active facilitation of focus groups: Exploring the 
implementation of inclusive education with research participants. South African Journal of Education, 
33(4), 1-14.

Sartorius, K., & Sartorius, B. (2013). The comparative performance of chartered accountancy students in 
South Africa: The impact of historical legacies. Development Southern Africa, 30(3), 401-416. DOI: 
10.1080/0376835X.2013.817307 



76   Journal of Student Affairs in Africa | Volume 10(1) 2022, 65-76 | 2307-6267 | DOI: 10.24085/jsaa.v10i1.2193

Schreiber, B. (2014). The role of student affairs in promoting social justice in South Africa. Journal of College 
& Character, 15(4), 211-218. 

Schreiber, B., & Yu, D. (2016). Exploring student engagement practices at a South African university: 
Student engagement as reliable predictor of academic performance. South African Journal of Higher 
Education, 30(5), 157-175. 

Strydom, F., Kuh, G., & Loots, S. (Eds.). (2017). Engaging students: Using evidence to promote student success. 
Sun Media

Strydom, J. F., & Mentz, M. (2010). Focusing the student experience on success through student engagement. 
South African Survey of Student Engagement.

Wawrzynski, M. R., Heck, A. M., & Remley, C. T. (2012). Student engagement in South African higher 
education. Journal of College Student Development, 53(1), 106-123. DOI: 10.1353/csd.2012.0007.

Wawrzynski, M. R., & Naik, S. (2021). Exploring outcomes from student activism in South Africa. Journal of 
College Student Development, 62(3), 327-344. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2021.0028.

Wisker, G., & Masika, R. (2017). Creating a positive environment for widening participation: A taxonomy 
for socially just higher education policy and practice. Higher Education Review, 49(2), 56-84.

How to cite:
Garton, P., Wawrzynski, M. R., Lemon, J., & Naik, S. (2022). Relational student engagement in 

co-curricular spaces: Evidence from a South African university. Journal of Student Affairs in Africa, 
10(1), 65-76. DOI: 10.24085/jsaa.v10i1.2193


	_Hlk105058965