perceptions of student engagement at a research-led university

Perceptions of student engagement at a research-led university

Martin Broadley, School of BiosciencesMatthew Charlton, School of GeographyGill Langmack, School of NursingJon Peirce, School of PsychologyTracey Sach, School of Community Health Sciences

Sean May, Web Designer (Nottingham Arabidopsis Stock Centre)

Kate Exley, Learning Set Advisor

Outline

Outline

Importance of student engagement Project evolution Literature review Web survey Results

Quantitative Qualitative

Conclusions Implications

Importance of student engagement

Importance of student engagement Students learn better when they are

interested

Less attrition (Staff or student)

Staff morale – nicer to teach pleasant/interested students

"Ask me my three main priorities for government, and I tell you: education, education, education."

Importance of student engagement

Increasing student numbers

Importance of student engagement

Other pressures, such as research

Importance of student engagement

Students aren’t going to University for the same reasons

Importance of student engagement

Project evolution

Project evolution - background How do we engage people in ‘boring’

subjects?

Literature review to define engagement

Literature review

Literature review - defining engagement

Deep learning – Bloom’s taxonomy (1956)

Multi-faceted construct Cognitive domain Behavioural domain Affective domain /emotional involvement (Chapman, 2003)

Involvement of learners (Entwhistle, 1992; Hall 2002)

Understanding the bigger picture (Entwhistle, 1992; Hall 2002)

Literature review - enabling engagement

A proactive learning environment (Hall, 2002)

Open, active and collaborative (McConnell, 1994; Salner, 1999)

Variety of learning styles (Kolb, 1984)

Designing the teaching / learning to enable achievement of learning

objectives and assessments (Biggs, 1999; Hall 2002)

Linking the learning and teaching strategies to promote the

students’ learning (Dearing, 1997, Recommendation 8)

Literature review - measuring engagement Time spent on task (Chapman, 2003)

Willingness to participate in activities (Nystrand and Gamoran, 1992)

Assessment of understanding and analysis of issues (Hall 2003)

Achievement of learning objectives

Transferability and application of knowledge to new contexts

Observed changes in student view-point (Biggs, 1999)

“Student engagement is easy to recognise . . .

. . . but difficult to define operationally”

(Haymore et al,1994)

Project evolution - background How do we engage people in ‘boring’

subjects?

Literature review to define engagement

Understanding what engagement is as well as how to achieve it

Web survey

Web survey

Web survey - aims and objectives1. Define student engagement

2. Identify most engaging forms of teaching

3. Determine factors influencing engagement

4. How do perceptions differ between:• Staff and students• Schools• Gender, age . . .

Web survey - methodology

Web survey (designed by Sean May)

Anonymous Active for 42 days

Sent to every school via school secretary Quantitative analysis – GenStat Qualitative analysis – Nvivo

Results

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39Days of survey

Num

ber

of r

espo

nden

tsResponse rate (173 staff, 1456 students)

Results – definition of engagement

Definition of engagement?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

inte

rest

enjo

ymen

t

inte

ract

ion

invo

lvem

ent

parti

cipa

tion

enth

usia

sm

chal

leng

e

mot

ivat

ion

feed

back

achi

evem

ent

com

mitm

ent

appl

icat

ion

orga

nisa

tion

atte

ntio

n

conf

iden

ce

choi

ce

inte

grat

ion

conn

ectio

n

exci

tem

ent

rete

ntio

n

com

fort

Defining words

Per

cent

age

of s

ampl

e (%

)

Academics

Students

Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient = 0.88, t Approximation = 7.96, P < 0.001, d.f. = 19

Optional comments (staff) . . . Definitions of engagement

No idea

Teacher driven

Need purpose, relevance and persistence

Optional comments (students) . . . Definition of Engagement

Need attachment or interest in the subject

Personal factors e.g. level of concentration

Type and quality of teaching

Results – what teaching methods are engaging ?

What teaching methods are engaging?Academic

StaffUnder- grad

Diploma Post-grad (FT)

Post-grad (PT)

$KW

e-learning 1.65 1.63 1.62 1.62 1.75 ns

fieldwork 2.35 2.10 2.29 2.39 2.50 **

groupwork 2.52 1.89 2.04 2.15 2.26 ***

ind.-learning 2.20 2.13 2.32 2.44 2.48 ***

lectures 2.01 2.08 2.37 2.08 2.08 **

pract. / lab. 2.48 2.26 2.67 2.24 2.64 ***

projects 2.55 2.02 2.08 2.33 2.63 ***

seminars 2.65 2.28 2.48 2.22 2.44 ***

workshops 2.44 2.15 2.30 2.11 2.29 *

$KW = Kruskal-Wallace One-Way Analysis of Variance, performed to determine the effect of "Role" on response (ns, P > 0.05; * P < 0.05; * P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001). The effects of "School", and "School nested within Role" accounted for less than 14 % of the total variation in response within each of the categories (estimated using residual maximum likelihood analyses).

Categories: 0 = not at all, 1 = weakly, 2 = moderately, 3 = strongly

Results – factors affecting engagement

Factors affecting engagement

Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient = 0.69, t Approximation = 3.57, P < 0.01, d.f. = 14

Facilities

Staff:student ratio / size of teaching groups

Amount of administration and bureaucracy - recruit more secretaries!

Lack of time

Lack of student motivation and ability

Lecturers need to learn how to apply teaching theory rather than have knowledge of teaching theories

Staff enthusiasm or lack of it for teaching (won’t lead to promotion)

Factors affecting engagement

Staff/university as the problem: Poor quality teaching Staff not interested in teaching Poor attitude of staff towards students Lack of contact time and seminars/tutorials Need more handouts and model answers Research and visiting staff unseen Poor building construction and layout

Students as the problem: No-one speaks in tutorials Poor morale Poor knowledge of content Envy between home and international students

Factors affecting engagement

Factors affecting engagement - feedback

Frequency of feedback:

Academic staff

Under- grad

Diploma Post-grad (FT)

Post-grad (PT)

$KW

EXAMS 1.92 1.40 1.56 1.26 1.64 ***

COURSEWORK 2.34 1.59 1.77 1.80 1.94 ***

ONGOING 1.98 1.23 1.35 1.59 1.82 ***

$KW = Kruskal-Wallace One-Way Analysis of Variance, performed to determine the effect of "Role" on response (ns, P > 0.05; * P < 0.05; * P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001). The effect of "School", and "School nested within Role" accounted for less than 12.6 % of the total variation in response within each of the categories (estimated using residual maximum likelihood analyses).

Categories: 0 = no feedback given, 1 = sometimes, 2 = often, 3 = always

Who initiates feedback?

Who gives feedback?

Types of feedback

Impediments

Recommendations

Factors affecting engagement - feedback

Who initiates feedback? Students Staff not readily available

Who gives feedback? Mentors, students, tutors, lecturers, supervisors

Types of feedback E-mail, verbal, exam, written, office hours, peer groups, staff-

student consultative committee

Impediments Amount, Quality, Timing

Recommendations Longer office hours, see marked exam papers, automatic on-line

personal feedback, more contact time

Factors affecting engagement - feedback

Factors affecting engagement - research / teaching links

Categories: 0 = not at all, 1 = weakly, 2 = moderately, 3 = strongly

Academic staff

Under- grad

Diploma Post-grad (FT)

Post-grad (PT)

$KW

Research familiarity1

2.06 0.73 0.87 1.52 1.73 ***

136.9 % of the variation in response attributed to Role, 7.6 % to (School + Role/School)*

Research link2 1.75 1.31 1.19 1.76 1.73 ***

26.4 % of the variation in response attributed to Role, 4.5 % to (School + Role/School)*

*Variation was assigned using a residual maximum likelihood analyses (linear mixed model)

Strength of link Strong Weak

Threats to link Teaching doesn’t get you promoted Research is not aimed at improving the learning

environment Teaching delegated to “Helots”

Belief

Factors affecting engagement - research /teaching links

Belief Students were not aware of the research but believed they must be linked Some students thought the best lectures were those linked to research Others thought teaching and research should be separate

Level: Enough

Research projects in final year linked closely to research Research posters up on departments walls Cutting edge links with industry Postgraduates know more than undergraduates But still problems e.g. deadlines break the chain of research, or becomes too

specialised Not enough

Researchers forced to teach Don’t know what lecturers officially research Taught like nursery children Not enough sharing or practical examples

Factors affecting engagement - research /teaching links

Discussion

Summary Definitions of engagement

Interesting, enjoyment, interactive, involvement (students) Interactive, involvement, motivation, enthusiasm (staff) NB: More passive for students, more active for staff

Methods of teaching: All engaging (but e-learning less popular) More passive for students, more active for staff

Feedback: Staff believe they give plenty – students don’t!

Research and teaching: Believe that these are linked – but the links aren’t always obvious

Implications

Methods of Teaching Use a variety of teaching methods

Feedback Provide more (timely) feedback, preferably typed

Research Include explicit links to research

Future development

Questions remaining: How do we bridge the ‘perception gap’ between staff and

students? How do you recognise when you are successfully engaging

the students? What are the implications for e-learning?

Aim to get into the pedagogical literature by publishing our rather large n (not that size matters)

Any Questions?