Student Engagement and Academic Achievement in Adolescence: The Mediating Role of Psychosocial Development

2.1 Student Engagement and Academic Achievement

The relevance of student engagement for adolescents’ academic achievement is well supported by extant research (Carvalho & Veiga, 2023; Chase et al., 2014; Lei, Cui, & Zhou, 2018; Li, 2018; Martínez, Oliveira, Murgui, & Veiga, 2024; Tao et al., 2022), especially in students facing higher social disadvantage (Salmela-Aro et al., 2022; Tomaszewski et al., 2020; Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013). The engagement–achievement relation was confirmed across countries and cultures (Fung et al., 2018; Lam et al., 2014; Li, 2018; Tao et al., 2022). However, this relation is not straightforward (Lei et al., 2018). After all, students may achieve and not be engaged in school or be engaged in school and still find it challenging to achieve (Chase et al., 2014; Shernoff, 2013). In addition, while some studies found a significant relation between achievement and the four dimensions of engagement, including the agentic dimension (Mameli & Passini, 2017; Veiga, 2016), others emphasised the role of behavioural and agentic engagement as predictors of achievement (Reeve et al., 2020; Tomás, Gutiérrez, Georgieva, & Hernández, 2020). Therefore, more studies are needed to further the engagement–achievement relation and the role of student engagement’s dimensions.

2.2 Student Engagement and Psychosocial Development

The decline in school adjustment, motivation, and student engagement in adolescence (Carvalho & Veiga, 2023; Ramos-Díaz, Rodríguez-Fernández, & Revuelta, 2016; Yeager, Lee, & Dahl, 2018) brings forward the confluence of academic, developmental, and social challenges that begin with adolescence onset (Binning et al., 2019). This reality requires considering the complexity of adolescence’s developmental demands and tasks, with particular attention to identity (Cadime et al., 2016; Flum & Kaplan, 2012; Marttinen et al., 2018). Accordingly, the present study suggests that psychosocial development, following Erikson’s five stages of childhood and adolescence – trust autonomy, initiative, industry, and identity (Erikson, 1968/1994) – may further the engagement-achievement relation.

Although we found no specific evidence on the relation between psychosocial stages and student engagement or its dimensions (Carvalho & Veiga, 2022, 2023), other studies confirmed the relation between psychosocial resources, with particular emphasis on identity, the main psychosocial stage and task of adolescence, and adolescent students’ health, well-being, and school adjustment (Almroth, László, Kosidou, & Galanti, 2020; Beck & Wiium, 2019; Binning et al., 2019; Flum & Kaplan, 2012; Hafen et al., 2012; Marttinen et al., 2018; Smith, Mann, & Kristjansson, 2020). Other studies underlined the critical relation between self-concept, a concept closely related to psychosocial development, and adolescent student engagement (Dixson, 2021; Veiga, García, Reeve, Wentzel, & Garcia, 2015). Consequently, there are expectations regarding the relationship between psychosocial development stages and student engagement. Nevertheless, considering the scarcity of studies, further research is deemed needed.

2.3 Psychosocial Development and Academic Achievement

Although research using a broad definition of psychosocial factors in academic research exists (e.g. Dixson et al., 2017), studies on the relation between psychosocial development, including identity, and school adjustment, including achievement, seem missing (Almroth et al., 2020; Carvalho & Veiga, 2022; Flum & Kaplan, 2012; Grbić & Maksić, 2022). However, the relation between psychosocial development and adolescents’ strengths, mental and psychological health, well-being, and prosocial behaviour (Carvalho & Veiga, 2022; Dixson et al., 2017) raises expectations of a positive association with academic achievement.

Moreover, studies addressing psychosocial constructs with some relatedness to Erikson’s theory presented promising findings regarding achievement. It is the case of trust (Binning et al., 2019), autonomy (Hafen et al., 2012), academic self-concept (Bakadorova & Raufelder, 2019; Fernández-Lasarte, Goñi, Camino, & Zubeldia, 2018; Gasparotto, Szeremeta, Vagetti, Stoltz, & Oliveira, 2018), global self-worth (Fairlamb, 2022; Manrique Millones, Ghesquière, & Van Leeuwen, 2014), positive identity (Beck & Wiium, 2019), self-affirmation intervention (Borman, Grigg, Rozek, Hanselman, & Dewey, 2018), identity exploration interventions (Flum & Kaplan, 2012), vocational identity (Marttinen et al., 2018), or ethnic-identity (Debrosse, Rossignac-Milon, Taylor, & Destin, 2018; Schotte, Stanat, & Edele, 2018).

Erikson’s theory offers a cohesive framework for the study of the relation between psychosocial development and achievement (Mahama, Asamoah-Gyimah, & Dramanu, 2024). However, one challenge arises: to go beyond the study of isolated concepts or stages, such as identity, and valuing psychosocial development as a whole, that is, including all the intertwined childhood and adolescence stages (Carvalho & Veiga, 2022; Dunkel & Harbke, 2017; Erikson, 1968/1994).

2.4 Mediating Role of Psychosocial Development

Research in the context of the self-system models valued student engagement as a mediator between, on the one hand, students’ perceptions of the context and motivational beliefs and, on the other, academic achievement (Reeve et al., 2020; Tao et al., 2022; Wang & Eccles, 2013). The relation context → self → engagement → achievement (Reeve et al., 2020) is so widespread that it is difficult to find research studying how variables, such as psychosocial development, may explain the engagement–achievement relation (Carvalho & Veiga, 2023; Demirci, 2020), which, as we said earlier, is not straightforward (Lam et al., 2014; Lei et al., 2018; Tomaszewski et al., 2020).

Previous studies reinforced this idea, showing how self-efficacy reduced student engagement explanation power (Olivier et al., 2019), how student engagement explains a small percentage of achievement when academic self-concept is considered (Dixson, 2021), how psychosocial variables, such as hope and social competencies, mediated student engagement relation to well-being (Demirci, 2020). In synthesis, these findings stressed that student engagement does not fully account for achievement (Lam et al., 2014; Tomaszewski et al., 2020), the need to deepen the engagement–achievement relation and, in this relation, the role of psychosocial development.

2.5 Current Study

The aim of this research is to deepen the study of student engagement–achievement relations by analysing the mediating role of psychosocial development. The theoretical model is presented in Figure 1, suggesting that student engagement has a direct and predictive effect on academic achievement and an indirect effect mediated by psychosocial development.

Figure 1

Mediation model.

The research considers two questions and four hypotheses derived from the literature review. The first question of the study is: How do student engagement, psychosocial development, and academic performance correlate? This question is based on studies that highlight the importance of multidimensional engagement for academic performance (Carvalho & Veiga, 2023; Chase et al., 2014; Lei et al., 2018; Li, 2018; Tao et al., 2022) and the relevance of psychosocial development for school adaptation (Batra, 2013; Cross & Cross, 2017). The hypotheses are as follows:

H1: There are positive and significant correlations between the dimensions of student engagement (cognitive, affective, behavioural, and agent) and academic performance, as evidenced by studies such as those by Lam et al. (2014) and Veiga (2016).

H2: There are positive and significant correlations between the dimensions of student engagement (cognitive, affective, behavioural, and agentic) and the stages of psychosocial development (trust, autonomy, initiative, industry, and identity), supported by research exploring the relationship between engagement and psychosocial development (Carvalho & Veiga, 2022; Dixson, 2021).

H3: There are positive and significant correlations between the stages of psychosocial development (confidence, autonomy, initiative, industry, and identity) and academic performance, as suggested by studies on the influence of psychosocial development on school adaptation (Almroth et al., 2020; Beck & Wiium, 2019).

The second question is: How do stages of psychosocial development mediate the relationship between student engagement and academic performance? This question is based on the literature that suggests the mediation of psychosocial variables in the relationship between engagement and performance (Reeve et al., 2020; Tao et al., 2022). Our hypothesis suggests:

H4: Psychosocial stages mediate the relationship between student engagement and academic performance, as discussed in studies exploring the mediation of psychosocial factors (Demirci, 2020; Olivier et al., 2019).

3.1 Sample

The study’s exploratory nature was reflected in the option for a non-probabilistic convenience sampling, including adolescent students from the 6th, 9th, and 11th grades from three different schools in Lisbon, Portugal. The study included 708 students. The mean age was 13.98 years (SD = 2.16) and included 385 early adolescents, aged between 10 and 14 years (54.4%), and 323 late adolescents, aged between 15 and 19 years (45.6%). Regarding gender, 397 students were girls (56.1%) and 311 were boys (43.9%). Regarding schools, 414 studied in public schools (58.5%) and 294 in private schools (41.5%).

3.2 Measures

Student engagement in school was assessed using the Student Engagement in School: Four-Dimensional Scale (SES-4DS) (Veiga, 2016), assessing cognitive, affective, behavioural, and agentic dimensions of engagement. The measure has 20 items, 7 of which are reversed. The scale presented five items per dimension, including the cognitive dimension (e.g. “I try to connect what I learn in one discipline with what I learn in others”), the affective dimension (e.g. “My school is a place where I feel excluded.”), the behavioural dimension (e.g. “I am distracted in the classroom”), and the agentic dimension (e.g. “During lessons, I intervene to express my opinions”). Participants answered using a Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree). The scale’s psychometric properties found in earlier studies (Veiga, 2016) were confirmed in later research (e.g. Veiga et al., 2021). The CFA results in this study presented a good model fit – χ ²(161) = 548.28, p < 0.001, χ ²/df = 3.41, goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.925, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.921; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.058 – and factor loadings between 0.30 and 0.87. In the present study, the cognitive, affective, and agentic dimensions of engagement presented adequate internal consistency, as indicated by Cronbach’s alpha values (Table 1). According to Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998), these dimensions had good reliabilities (α ≥ 0.70). The behavioural dimension showed a lower but acceptable value (α = 0.68).

Psychosocial development assessment used a shorter version of the Erikson Psychosocial Inventory (EPSI) scale (Rosenthal, Gurney, & Moore, 1981), built to assess Erikson’s six stages of childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood. The original scale has 72 items, evaluating each stage’s crisis positive and negative resolution (12 items per stage). Although supported by earlier adaptations to Portuguese higher education students (Cabral & Matos, 2010), the adaptation followed the steps suggested by the International Test Commission (ITC, 2017). Aiming for a shorter version, an exploratory factor analysis with Varimax rotation allowed a solution of 3 items assessing each stage, which explained 61.14% of the variance. A confirmatory factor analysis validated the model’s good fit – χ ²(80) = 234.93, p < 0.001, χ ²/df = 2.94, CFI = 0.933; RMSEA = 0.052 – with factor loadings ranging between 0.35 and 0.90. This shorter version of EPSI, presented in Appendix 1, addressed the psychosocial stages of childhood and adolescence, including trust (e.g. “I trust people”), autonomy (e.g. “I can’t make sense of my life”), initiative (e.g. “I am able to be first with new ideas”), industry (e.g. “I’m trying hard to achieve my goals”), and identity (e.g. “The important things in life are clear to me”). Five items are reversed. Participants answered using a Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree). As to reliability (Table 1), the total score of the psychosocial development presented an adequate internal consistency (α = 0.78), and the five dimensions’ values ranged between 0.57 (autonomy) and 0.69 (industry and identity).

Academic achievement and background variables – Students answered two questions regarding their academic grades in Portuguese and Mathematics last year (1–5 scale). The study used the average of the two grades to measure academic achievement. The study also considered gender (girls and boys) and age (years) using two closed questions. Regarding age, the study followed the UN’s adolescence definition, valuing the distinction between early-young (10–14 years) and late-older (15–19 years) adolescence (Patton et al., 2016). Finally, the study considered school type, distinguishing between public (government funding) and private (family fees) schools.

3.3 Procedure

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Education – University of Lisbon, the Portuguese Ministry of Education, and each school board. The authors ensured ethics warrants concerning informed consent, privacy, and confidentiality. Informed consent included two actions: (a) a visit to all classrooms presenting the study, ensuring that students understood the voluntary nature of participation and the warrants regarding confidentiality and anonymity; (b) a letter to parents presenting the study and requesting a signed authorisation for their children’s participation.

Researchers conducted the data collection process in each school, using IT equipment specifically lent by Microsoft Portugal and an online questionnaire (Google Form). The fact that all questions were mandatory reduced data missing issues. A total of 804 students participated in the study. After a general analysis, 74 questionnaires filled in automatically, randomly, or in less than 10 min were removed. Later, after exploratory analysis, 22 questionnaires were removed as outliers. Finally, 708 questionnaires entered the study.

3.4 Data Analyses

First, IBM SPSS (27 version) was used to conduct a preliminary exploratory and descriptive analysis of the study’s main variables and examine their correlations using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Correlation coefficients between pairs of variables were all less than 0.80, suggesting that there is no significant multicollinearity problem in the data. Additionally, there were no missing values in the data. The main hypotheses of this study were tested using a structural equation model (SEM) with AMOS 27 version (Arbuckle, 2020). First, Harman’s single-factor test was used to verify common method bias. The total variance explained by a single factor was 19.88%, below the threshold of 50%, suggesting that common method bias is not a significant concern in this dataset. The SEM model was assessed using a series of goodness-of-fit indicators, namely, the chi-square test (χ ²) and its associated probability (p), χ ²/df, the GFI, CFI (Bentler, 1990) and the root RMSEA (Browne & Cudeck, 1993), along with its 90% confidence interval (CI), as recommended by MacCallum and Austin (2000). Model fit was considered good when χ ²/df was lower than 3 (Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003), CFI and GFI values were above 0.90, and RMSEA was lower than 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

To determine possible problems with the hypothesised models that could be solved in the context of the available data, modification indices provided by AMOS (Arbuckle, 2020) were examined. According to the recommendations concerning model re-specification, only the most significant modifications to the hypothesised model were carried out when these were conceptually and theoretically justifiable (Kleine, 2016; MacCallum, 1995).

The mediation analyses analysed the indirect effect of student engagement on academic achievement via psychosocial development using a bootstrap bias-corrected confidence interval (BC 90% CI) method (Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). The size of the bootstrap resample was defined as 200 (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). This method is recommended in the literature, rather than more traditional approaches, such as Sobel’s test (Cheung & Lau, 2008).

4.1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between Study Variables

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics regarding the main study variables, student engagement in school, psychosocial development, academic achievement, correlation matrix, and reliability. Findings show that all dimensions of student engagement in school were positively correlated [r ^(min–max) = 0.17–0.50], except the behavioural and agentic dimensions, which were not significantly correlated. Similarly, all dimensions of psychosocial development were positively correlated, the weakest relation being the one between trust and initiative (r = 0.08) and the strongest being between initiative and industry (r = 0.43). In what regards the associations between student engagement and academic achievement, all correlations were significant, positive, and weak [r ^(min–max) = 0.13–0.26], providing support to H1. As to the relations between student engagement and psychosocial development, positive and weak to moderate correlations were found between all dimensions, the weakest being the relation between autonomy and cognitive engagement (r = 0.13) and the strongest being the one between trust and affective engagement (r = 0.50). Therefore, these results support H2. Regarding the associations between psychosocial development and academic achievement, all correlations were significant, positive, and weak to moderate [r ^(min–max) = 0.09–0.37], except for the relation between identity and academic achievement, which was not statistically significant. Therefore, these findings partially support H3.

4.2 Structural Models: Psychosocial Development as Mediator Between Student Engagement and Academic Achievement

Five mediation models were analysed, with each dimension of psychosocial development as a mediator; only industry and identity were shown to mediate the relationship between engagement and academic achievement. Therefore, these two models are described in detail below.

As shown in Figure 2, the cognitive, affective, and behavioural dimensions of student engagement were positively related to industry: β = 0.34, p = 0.013 for the cognitive dimension, β = 0.11, p = 0.016 for the affective dimension, and β = 0.39, p = 0.007 for the behavioural dimension. Conversely, none of these dimensions were directly associated with academic achievement (all p > 0.05). Industry was also positively and significantly associated with academic achievement, β = 0.45, p = 0.020. The mediation analysis, as Table 3 shows, evidenced that the indirect effects were statistically significant for the cognitive dimension, β = 0.15, 95% CI [0.06; 0.25], p = 0.012, for the affective dimension, β = 0.05, 95% CI 0.02; 0.10], p = 0.016, and for the behavioural dimension, β = 0.18, 95% CI 0.11; 0.25], p = 0.014. As the direct effects were non-significant, the industry fully mediates the relationship between the cognitive, affective, and behavioural dimensions and academic achievement. Additionally, the agentic dimension showed a direct positive and significant relation with academic achievement, β = 0.21, p = 0.034. The same results were obtained when controlling for gender, age (early vs late adolescence) and school type (public vs private), except for the mediation of the relationship between cognitive engagement and achievement, in which industry is a partial mediator (Figure 2). The model also presented an acceptable model fit (χ ² = 810.82, df = 236; χ ²/df = 3.44; CFI = 0.903; GFI = 0.907; RMSEA = 0.059, RMSEA 90% CI [0.054, 0.063]).

Figure 2

Results of the structural model for academic achievement with industry as mediator. Note. While not presented, the standardised covariances between engagement dimensions were included, varying between 0.04 and 0.67, all with p < 0.001, except for the covariance between agentic and behavioural engagement. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

A second model was tested, with identity as a mediator (Figure 3). Only the cognitive and affective dimensions were positively related to identity, β = 0.20, p = 0.047 and β = 0.38, p = 0.006, respectively. Of these two dimensions, only the affective one was directly associated with academic achievement, β = 0.12, p = 0.008. Moreover, identity was negatively and significantly associated with academic achievement, β = −0.27, p = 0.013. Regarding the mediation analysis, Table 3 shows how the indirect effects were statistically significant for the cognitive dimension, β = −0.05, 95% CI −0.10; −0.01], p = 0.046, and for the affective dimension, β = −0.10, 95% CI [−0.15; −0.07], p = 0.006. Since the direct effect was non-significant for the cognitive dimension, identity is a full mediator of the relationship between this dimension and academic achievement; as for the affective dimension, identity partially mediates its relationship with academic achievement. Additionally, the agentic and behavioural dimensions showed direct positive and significant relations with academic achievement, β = 0.28, p = 0.032 and β = 0.30, p = 0.020, respectively. The same results were obtained when controlling for gender, age (early vs late adolescence), and school type (public vs private). This model also presented an acceptable model fit (χ ² = 724.95, df = 236; χ ²/df = 3.07; CFI = 0.913; GFI = 0.917; RMSEA = 0.054, RMSEA 90% CI [0.050, 0.059]).

Figure 3

Results of the structural model for academic achievement with identity as mediator. Note. While not presented, the standardised covariances between engagement dimensions were included, varying between 0.03 and 0.67, all with p < 0.001, except for the covariance between agentic and behavioural engagement. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Thus, these findings support H4 only when considering industry and identity as mediators.

5.1 Student Engagement and Achievement

Findings supported H1, showing that all dimensions of student engagement (cognitive, affective, behavioural, and agentic) were positively yet weakly correlated with academic achievement.

Results are consistent with empirical literature (Carvalho & Veiga, 2023; Wang, Degol, & Henry, 2019) and earlier studies using the four-dimensional model of student engagement (e.g. Mameli & Passini, 2017; Veiga, 2016). These findings justify student engagement’s relevance: a psychological process expressing how students interact with school and learning, which bridges students’ contextual factors (e.g. relation with teachers, parents, or peers) and personal factors (e.g. motivational beliefs) to outcomes such as learning and achievement (Lam et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2019). Similar results regarding the weak correlations were found in an international study with 12 countries, possibly pointing out how student engagement is just one of many variables that explain academic achievement (Lam et al., 2014).

The highest correlation was found for the agentic dimension, followed by the behavioural dimension. These findings are aligned with studies valuing the primacy of the agentic and behavioural dimensions regarding academic achievement (Reeve et al., 2020; Tomás et al., 2020). However, the cognitive and affective dimensions also present similar positive and significant correlations with achievement. Therefore, findings appear to corroborate the complementary nature of engagement dimensions towards school adjustment and general well-being (Finn & Zimmer, 2012; Lei et al., 2018), with affective and cognitive engagement playing a critical part (Storlie & Toomey, 2020). Earlier studies reinforced this idea by stressing how adolescent students who keep up with their tasks, comply, participate, and achieve but do not feel emotionally or cognitively engaged are, unnoticeably, at risk of mental health, ill-being, and burnout (Qahri-Saremi & Turel, 2016; Widlund et al., 2021).

5.2 Student Engagement and Psychosocial Development

Results supported H2 by presenting positive, weak-moderate correlations between all dimensions of student engagement and psychosocial development. The findings reinforced studies valuing the role of psychosocial development in school adjustment (Batra, 2013; Carvalho & Veiga, 2022; Cross & Cross, 2017).

Affective engagement’s correlation with total psychosocial development presented the highest magnitude, explained by the high correlation of affective engagement with trust and autonomy. Affective-trust correlation is consistent with the mutuality between trust – the cornerstone of vital personality, source of hope and optimism (Erikson & Erikson, 1998; Erikson, 1968/1994) – and the positive relations with the widening radius of significant persons and institutions (Erikson, 1968/1994) including relations in the school settings (Binning et al., 2019; Demirci, 2020). Affective-autonomy correlation is consistent with adolescents’ strive for autonomy (Hafen et al., 2012; Yeager et al., 2018), deeply related to will and purpose (Newman & Newman, 2015), which explains adolescent’s fierce concern with the level of relevance and autonomy existing in tasks and environments (Hafen et al., 2012; Yeager et al., 2018).

The cognitive and behavioural dimensions presented higher magnitude correlations with industry, which brings forward the beliefs in one’s abilities as a learner and a worker, or what one meaningfully can do (Erikson, 1968/1994; Newman & Newman, 2015). This correlation is consistent with studies that showed the relation between academic competence and intrinsic motivation (Yeager et al., 2018) or between academic self-concept and student engagement (Wang & Eccles, 2013).

The agentic dimension, valuing students’ proactive, constructive, and reciprocal contributions to their learning (Reeve et al., 2020), presented an expected higher correlation with initiative, which underlines students’ desire to explore the world purposefully and devise new ways to act upon it (Newman & Newman, 2015).

5.3 Psychosocial Development and Academic Achievement

Results partially supported H3, as all correlations between psychosocial development stages and academic achievement were significant, positive, and weak to moderate, except for identity, whose relation with academic achievement was not statistically significant. Findings are consistent with the claim of psychosocial development association with school adjustment (Batra, 2013; Carvalho & Veiga, 2022; Cross & Cross, 2017; Grbić & Maksić, 2022; Hamman & Hendricks, 2005), highlighting how students’ healthy development contributes to coping effectively with the academic and relational challenges of school and learning (Negru‐Subtirica, Damian, Pop, & Crocetti, 2023), which would translate into better academic achievement (Martínez et al., 2024).

Although literature stressed identity value for school adjustment (Beck & Wiium, 2019; Caraballo, 2019; Flum & Kaplan, 2012; Grbić & Maksić, 2022), in this study, the correlation with achievement was non-significant. An earlier study also found no relation between identity and academic expectations (Almroth et al., 2020). According to the authors, it is feasible that the identity resolution process, demanding adolescents’ reorganisation efforts with a certain degree of uncertainty, may develop as a different and independent process from academic achievement.

5.4 Mediating Role of Psychosocial Development

The second question of the study aimed to further knowledge on the engagement–achievement relationship, analysing the mediation role of psychosocial development stages. At this level, findings presented a mediation effect only for industry and identity, hence only partially confirming the hypothesis (H4). However, these two results are noteworthy. First, industry fully mediated the relationship between the cognitive, affective, and behavioural dimensions and academic achievement. Only the agentic dimension showed a direct positive and significant relation with academic achievement. Second, identity fully mediated the relationship between cognitive engagement and academic achievement and partially mediated the relation between affective engagement and academic achievement. Only the agentic and behavioural dimensions presented direct, positive, and significant relationships with academic achievement.

The mediating role of industry, fully explaining the relationship between the cognitive, affective, and behavioural dimensions and academic achievement, is consistent with studies empirically valuing self-efficacy (Olivier et al., 2019) or academic self-concept in explaining achievement (Bakadorova & Raufelder, 2019; Fernández-Lasarte et al., 2018; Gasparotto et al., 2018; Wang & Eccles, 2013). The present study shows that being engaged is not enough to achieve academically. Industry, the psychosocial stage related to students’ sense of competence, plays a critical role.

Industry is deeply related to school and its long-lasting effect on children’s and adolescents’ perceptions of their worth as learners and achievers, the value of learning, working, and contributing to society, and the best attitudes when facing new opportunities or challenges (Erikson & Erikson, 1998; Newman & Newman, 2015; Roeser, Peck, & Nasir, 2006). Industry effectively supports engagement translation into achievement. Therefore, it is possible that a lower sense of industry and competence, possibly emerging from the harsh schooling experiences of students from lower SES or immigrant families, may explain why students may be engaged yet not achieving (Shernoff, 2013). Furthering the idea, Erikson posits how inferiority, the counterpart of industry and competence, could lead to inertia, which “threatens to paralyse an individual’s productive life” (Erikson & Erikson, 1998, pp. 76–77). Therefore, results underlined the need to care for each adolescent’s history as a student, supporting their passion for learning, optimistic regard towards their abilities, ability to cope with failure, and guidance to achieve academically and reach their goals (Newman & Newman, 2015).

Regarding identity, it fully mediated the effect of cognitive engagement on achievement and partially the effect of affective engagement on achievement. However, unlike industry, the mediation effect was negative. Developmental literature provides some explanation. Erikson introduced identity formation as adolescence’s main stage and task, which demands reviewing childhood identifications and experiences, integrating new changes, challenges, and perspectives, achieving a worldview with some level of sameness and continuity, developing a personal understanding and a way of envisaging the future to which one wants to commit (Erikson & Erikson, 1998; Erikson, 1968/1994; Hamman & Hendricks, 2005; Newman & Newman, 2015). It is quite a task! Plunging into identity formation, with a certain amount of uncertainty (Almroth et al., 2020) and the decrease in identity synthesis and increase in identity confusion throughout a considerable part of adolescence (Bogaerts et al., 2021), may require adolescent students’ cognitive and affective resources. Therefore, although behavioural and agentic engagement sustains achievement, in a sort of passive compliance to school precepts (Flum & Kaplan, 2012), identity formation disrupts the positive relation of cognitive and affective engagement with achievement.

Results are consistent with earlier studies showing how adolescents’ intrinsic motivation decreased when dealing with identity-related issues such as prioritising social goals, acquiring adolescent-specific social competence, or finding meaning and purpose (Yeager et al., 2018). These results matter greatly. First, they emphasise how adolescent students’ investment in identity exploration may, in many educational settings, be at odds with their learning tasks, schoolwork, and environments (Smith et al., 2020; Yeager et al., 2018). Second, they state that supporting students’ identity formation offers promising prospects regarding academic achievement (Flum & Kaplan, 2012; Hamman & Hendricks, 2005; Smith et al., 2020). Literature provides different directions for meaningful action regarding identity formation support: schoolwork rich in exploration opportunities and focusing on the whole person and not exclusively on academic achievement (Flum & Kaplan, 2012); meaningful activities whose purpose is to reach others and the world welfare (Yeager et al., 2018); adoption of the motto “restoring relationships to the heart of learning” (Roeser et al., 2006, p. 414); valuing positive and caring teacher-student and peers relationships; and fostering students belonging and participation (Flum & Kaplan, 2012).

Results from this study showed that it takes more than engagement to achieve. They showed that psychosocial development matters. It helps to deepen and explain the engagement–achievement relation, which, in our sample, is enhanced by industry and restrained by identity. These results highlight psychosocial development’s critical role in addressing the achievement gap (Dixson et al., 2017; Dixson, 2021). Regarding industry, students with a low sense of industry, possibly estranged from the school ways, may feel engaged but find it harder to achieve. Therefore, special attention is needed for students facing concurrent difficulties (Roeser et al., 2006), such as low SES families students (Dixson et al., 2017; Tomaszewski et al., 2020), minority or immigrant background groups students (Behr & Fugger, 2020; Debrosse et al., 2018; Schotte et al., 2018; Veiga et al., 2021), or students with learning specificities or high abilities (Carvalho & Veiga, 2022; Cross & Cross, 2017). Regarding identity, students who achieve, therefore signalling to the world that they are doing just fine but are affectively or cognitively disengaged, maybe invisibly at risk of mental health, ill-being, and burnout (Qahri-Saremi & Turel, 2016; Widlund et al., 2021). In this context, studies showed the effectiveness of identity interventions addressing the motivation and learning of all students (Flum & Kaplan, 2012).

5.5 Theoretical and Practical Implications

Theoretically, the study underscores the importance of psychosocial development in understanding how student engagement translates into academic success. It suggests that engagement alone does not fully explain achievement, pointing to the need for a comprehensive approach that includes developmental factors. For educational practice, the findings suggest designing interventions supporting engagement and psychosocial development. Schools should create environments that foster trust, autonomy, initiative, industry, and identity. Special attention should be given to at-risk students, and teacher training should include strategies to support psychosocial development.

5.6 Limitations and Future Research

There are significant limitations to consider. One is the specificity of the sample, with students from only three schools in the same city. More studies, with more random and representative samples, are needed to confirm and deepen results. Another limitation is the absence of contextual variables. Future research should address the role played by contextual variables, such as SES and family background (Chase et al., 2014; Lei et al., 2018; Manrique Millones et al., 2014). A third limitation is the measure used for psychosocial assessment, which, despite the psychometric quality, can be improved in search for a better match between theory and assessment (Carvalho & Veiga, 2022). Another important limitation is the study’s cross-sectional design, which does not allow conclusions about causal relations between the variables. New studies using a longitudinal design could present richer evidence on the relation between psychosocial development, engagement, and achievement (Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013).