Student Engagement

Abstract

Many definitions exist for “student engagement,” and all refer to the ways in which students interact with their studies, peers, teachers, extracurricular activities, and all other factors related to their educational experience. Students have different personalities and ways of learning, which must be taken into consideration by faculty and administration when designing curricula and selecting teaching methods and planning learning activities. Student engagement is the result of a holistic and student-centered approach to teaching. Moreover, it is considered by modern pedagogical experts as essential to student retention and success. Experts argue that, properly used, computer-based technologies can enhance student engagement.

Overview

Student engagement is increasingly considered by teaching experts to be a strong indicator of educational success. Moreover, student engagement is the result of careful planning and implementation of classroom instruction. Although it is considered a desirable characteristic of modern schools, there is no consensus on its definition. Teaching experts and students differ in what it means, but commonalities can be pinpointed across the various definitions. Students are engaged in the classroom when they feel delighted by and interested in their academic work and related activities, and accomplish their classroom tasks and homework willingly. In other words, it refers to student’s consistent desire and—to an extent—compulsion to participate and succeed in the whole learning process.

Not surprisingly, the idea of student engagement is connected to that of motivation. Although sometimes it overlaps with the concept of motivation, it is not the same. Motivation is a set of reasons or process that causes, directs and sustains goal-oriented actions and behaviors. As such, it is related to engagement because reaching a goal needs not only the initiation of actions toward it, but also the persistence and endurance to continue despite barriers and obstacles. Student engagement, on the other hand, refers to the motivation and willingness to participate in a variety of educational activities, including attending classes, performing required work to the best of a student’s abilities, listening actively to peers and teachers, following directions with a positive attitude, participating in extracurricular or other school activities, and other related behaviors.

Although student engagement is often tied to a tendency to self-initiating behavior among students, it is understood that to stimulate engagement among learners, educators must actively and conscientiously create the conditions for this to occur. Studies show that all members of an educational setting—a school, college, or training facility—need to become involved and ensure that all of administration and faculty are on the same page as to the meaning of “student engagement.”

There is a wide variety of pedagogical philosophies and didactic strategies used in modern educational settings in order to reach this goal. Most of these teaching methods include providing students with clear and coherent learning criteria, modeling to students the skills and behavior required for success, the encouragement of feedback from educators to students and vice versa, and support of all behaviors that lead to engagement.

Student engagement is of special importance in settings catering to at-risk and non-traditional students, because studies suggest that engaged students are less likely to fail at their studies and/or drop out of school. Engagement is based on positive modeling and relationships with educators as well as a learning environment that fosters comfort, trust, recognition of students’ ideas and expression, interactions with classroom peers, and other forms of engagement. Educator-student interactions should transcend the classroom and focus more on communication than on hierarchical relationships. All these factors prove beneficial to all students.

In view of the wide variety of methods available to define and foster student engagement, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) provides numerous instruments to measure and promote student engagement. These are used by many educational institutions in the United States and abroad.

With the goal of being thorough, the NSSE uses a cross-variety of methods to measure student engagement nationally, such as self-reporting (surveys, questionnaires), case studies, and direct observation. Among its innovations has been the inclusion of students as evaluators, which has resulted in positive and efficient outcomes, as assessed by educators, researchers, and students alike. To determine levels of student engagement, the NSSE proposes an institution must first look at the amount of time and effort expended by students in their work and other educational activities. Secondarily, examine how the institution uses its resources and organizes all learning opportunities and activities, and what it does to motivate student participation.

Further Insights

Educators have been concerned about student engagement for a long time. In the 1930s, for example, psychologist and education expert John Dewey proposed radical school reforms in schools meant to be deployed over ninety years, with the purpose of fostering student engagement. Much of the problem of student engagement is that so many people think differently about it. In the field of pedagogy—or education—engagement is increasingly valued.

Studies show that teaching in an environment that encourages feedback, diversity, collaborative learning and problem-solving, critical thinking, and ambiguity, prepares students better for a society in which they will face complex problems, rapid changes and a diverse and multicultural society.

Long term research directed by Alexander Astin, from the Higher Education Research Institute, identified the teaching practices that predict student engagement and learning achievements: close contact with teachers, prompt feedback, clear instructions and high expectations, and collaborative learning, among others. Learning gains result from student engagement with their academic experience, and it is clearly connected with the pedagogical practices promoted and expected in an institution. Although methods of student engagement relate directly to the relationship of students with their educators and studies, research shows that engaged students become more engaged with their school, with extracurricular activities, and volunteerism. These results suggest that students engaged in school also become more engaged in community activities at large.

Some educational institutions have begun to experiment with including student participation in educational research, as well as program and curricula-design. For instance, in some colleges, students organize and interpret student feedback questionnaires, undertake educational evaluations, provide feedback for course reviews, identifying problems, and other such actions. Some institutions have taken it a step beyond and ask students to provide solutions for problems they have identified. Involving students with one another through collaborative learning in the classroom, and peer tutoring and mentoring outside the classroom also works towards increasing engagement. Moreover, students are useful assessors of educational technology and can be trained to teach educators on how to best use available technology. In fact, some universities have taken the radical step of involving students in curricula design. These actions not only work toward the creation of a more student-centered environment, but also increase student work skills for life after college. Evidence exists that suggests that those educational centers that have developed student engagement practices have improved their engagement scores much better than other institutions.

Many of these practices have existed for a long time. It was only in the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century, however, that experts coalesced them into methodological frameworks under the rubric of “student engagement.” Some have become part of formal teaching methodologies or institutional practices understood as “student-centered,” fostering a diversity of strategies that focus on the ways different students learn and improving their opportunities for educational gain.

Seeking to better understand how to engage students, experts have developed a useful typology of engagement styles: Independent, collaborative, passive, and intense.

• Independent—An independent style of engagement is high on academic interest and cognitive action, and less concerned with socially oriented approaches. Independent-style students are participants in a learning community and relate positively and openly to faculty and staff. Of a more individualistic nature, such students are less inclined to work collaboratively with other students and evidence less interest in extracurricular participation.
• Collaborative—Collaboratively inclined students are very likely to participate in the social aspects of school academics, such as teamwork, and activities beyond the classroom. They feel identified or validated by learning communities and enjoy participating in a wide array of activities beyond the classroom.
• Passive—Students who engage passively rarely participate in anything beyond the activities directly linked to learning and productive work.
• Intense—Students who may be termed “intense” are highly involved and committed to their school and all areas of schoolwork (Trowler, 2010).

Other types of engagement studies are focused on the student engagement environment of learning institutions. The contribution of all staff in a learning institution is of importance, because students must interact not only with faculty, but also with administration in order to register for classes, participate in extracurricular activities, find a job, do research, participate in travel abroad and other learning programs, and many other forms of student life during and after their education. All of these are crucial to a student’s learning experience. Based on NSSE studies of college campuses, the following seven types of student engagement exist.

• Diverse but interpersonally fragmented—In these institutions, students have abundant experiences with diversity. They are less technologically inclined. Students do not report viewing their peers, faculty, and institutional staff as supportive.
• Homogeneous and interpersonally cohesive—Students have very limited experience with diversity but view their school and peers as supportive.
• Intellectually stimulating—At such campuses, students are engaged in numerous academic activities and a variety of interactions with faculty within and without the classroom. They are inclined to collaborative learning and challenging work and thinking.
• Interpersonally supportive—Students experience a high rate of diversity contact, engage in a medium level of contact with faculty and view their peers as supportive.
• High-tech, low-touch—Immersed in information technology to the point that it overcomes all other social interactions. Intense individualism and limited collaboration. In such campuses, there are few interpersonal exchange opportunities.
• Academically challenging and supportive—High standards and expectations, an emphasis on tradition and higher order or analytic thinking. Students are supportive of each other.
• Collaborative—Students are supportive of each other and have a reasonable amount of contact with educators. More technological mediation and limited experiences with diversity. (Trowler, 2010)

Issues

Although often considered as a system that alienates students, modern technology can contribute significantly to student engagement efforts. Since the late 1990s, computer technologies have opened up the pedagogical field, providing more opportunities to work with a variety of teaching and learning styles. In the opinion of some experts, technology can be used to engage students with class material and improve participation. Moreover, the addition of technology in the classroom contributes to students becoming better skilled at the information technologies so important for the contemporary workplace. In fact, students often report experiencing stress when faced with the challenge of learning new technological tools but, as they become better skilled at it, they report it as more enjoyable and using older instruments of learning.

Technology may also present pitfalls if its use and implementation is not coherent with or relevant to the course. According to many seasoned educators, technology for the sake of technology should be avoided; that is, learning technologies should be relevant to optimize teaching methods and improve the learning experience. Educators are increasingly interested in incorporating technology as an instrument to enhance student engagement and enrich their learning participation, rather than using technology just because it is available. As with all other forms of technology, then, learning technology comes with both benefits and challenges.

As research illuminates, technologies can also increase teaching engagement, particularly in large classrooms, in which it is difficult for students to interact with their instructor. An example would be the use of clicker technology, in which instructors can determine whether students are grasping information; clicker technology can also be used successfully to promote higher-order and critical thinking.

Social media such as X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook, and learning platforms such as Blackboard and Kahoot, among many others, is used in many contemporary large classroom settings to promote discussion online. This allows participating students access to varied perspectives through thoughtful discussion. It also helps them develop argumentation skills that support their points of view while respectful of the sentiments of others. Some platforms will be more attractive than others, and instructors will do well to see which is more comfortable for students (Kirsch, Marlow, Pingley, Leonhirth & Lownes, 2016).

As they foster such forms of computer-mediated active learning, digital and web-based technologies also allow students more control over their learning style, use of course material and participation in class discussion. On the other hand, critics have pointed out that instruments such as online classroom discussion boards are by nature artificial and avoid students developing skills of thoughtful face-to-face argumentation. Students usually write their opinions and contributions to a conversation, but do not have to follow the full thread of the conversation.

Others argue that in the contemporary learning environment, discussion boards such as those offered by university platforms as Blackboard have become traditional forums that do not engage students much. For instance, millennials—the generation born between 1982 and 2004—report feeling more comfortable with tools such as Twitter, in which they can communicate rapidly and easily in and out of the classroom. In fact, studies do show that social media outlets are better at encouraging participation than traditional discussion boards.

Critics, however, point out that social media outlets do little to promote thoughtful conversation and deep thinking, keeping the level of argumentation superficial. Other challenges faced by social media outlets is that many students use them also for their personal lives and may not want to mix both. Moreover, social media outlets offer less privacy than classroom discussion boards, which poses a whole series of privacy-related risks that students may not be prepared to manage or fully comprehend (Kirsch, Marlow, Pingley, Leonhirth & Lownes, 2016).

Universities increasingly collapse smaller classes into ever bigger classrooms, calling for new ways to engage and involve students in the learning experience. As illustrated above, the relevance to this process of digital and web-based technology is indisputable, and yet presents many challenges that are still the subject of debate. Experts, however, tend to foster hope that modern communication technologies offer many ways to improve student engagement and that, all potential difficulties considered, the benefits will outweigh the challenges. In other words, if properly planned and implemented, incorporating learning technologies in the classroom is more likely to be beneficial than harmful to both faculty and students and be a crucial instrument for enhancing student engagement.

Involving students in different aspects of their learning experience increases their engagement with their studies, faculty and peers, academic institutions, and with the world at large. Successful engagement strategies are multi-faceted—that is, they operate through multiple positive ways, helping teachers become better educators, and helping students learn more effectively as they prepare for life beyond secondary or higher education.

Terms & Concepts

At-risk students: A student who is at risk of failing or dropping out of school. Usually refers to high school students.

Discussion Boards: Also known as message boards and online forums. A web-based bulletin board in which participants write a message or contribution in order to share information.

Faculty: The teaching staff of an educational institution, usually a university or college. In some countries, it is also used to denominate one of its discipline departments, for example, the faculty of humanities.

Higher Education: Education beyond high school.

Information Technology: The use of computer-based telecommunications to store, use, and manage information.

Millennials: Individuals born between approximately 1982 and 2004.

Social Media: Web-based applications that allow its users to participate in Internet networking, creating and sharing content and information.

Web-based Technology: Internet-based technology; information stored on the Internet rather than on computers’ memory and hard drive.

Bibliography

Bradford, J., Mowder, D., & Bohte, J. (2016). You can lead students to water, but you can't make them think: An assessment of student engagement and learning through student-centered teaching. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 16 (4), 33–43. Retrieved July 12, 2024, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=118508418&site=ehost-live

Buchanan, S. S., Harlan, M. M., Bruce, C. C., & Edwards, S. S. (2016). Inquiry based learning models, information literacy, and student engagement: A literature review. School Libraries Worldwide, 22 (2), 23–39. Retrieved July 12, 2024, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=119070319&site=ehost-live

Egri, C. P. (2012). Introduction: Enhancing business education through creativity, mindfulness, and accreditation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11 (4), 703.

Kirsch, B., Marlow, D., Pingley, A., Leonhirth, D., & Lownes, S. (2016). Improving student engagement with technology tools. Currents in Teaching & Learning, 8 (2), 50–61. Retrieved July 12, 2024, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=118916297&site=ehost-live

Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions For Institutional Research, 2009 (141), 5-20. Retrieved July 12, 2024, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=37139230&site=ehost-live

Larrier, Y. I., Hall, K., Linton, J. M., Bakerson, M., Larrier, I. M., & Shirley, T. S. (2016). Problem based learning: a viable school counseling intervention to promote student engagement with at-risk high school students. National Teacher Education Journal, 9 (2), 11–20. Retrieved July 12, 2024, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=116393300&site=ehost-live

Ming L., Lingyun, Y., Yu, Q., Peng, L., & Xiaohui, Z. (2016). College Student Academic Motivation and Engagement in the College English Course. Theory & Practice In Language Studies, 6 (9), 1767–1773. Retrieved July 12, 2024, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=118552651&site=ehost-live

Pickford, R. (2016). Student engagement: Body, mind and heart—A proposal for an embedded multi-dimensional student engagement framework. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 4 (2), 25–32. Retrieved July 12, 2024, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=117703967&site=ehost-live

Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. Lancaster, UK: University of Lancaster.

Vuori, J. (2014). Student engagement: Buzzword of fuzzword? Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 36 (5), 509–519. Retrieved July 12, 2024, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=98053335&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Hurtt, B. B., & Bryant, J. J. (2016). Instructional design changes in an undergraduate A&P course to facilitate student engagement and interest. Journal of College Science Teaching, 46 (2), 26–31. Retrieved July 12, 2024, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=119137070&site=ehost-live

Meng, T., & Khe Foon Hew, K. (2016). Incorporating meaningful gamification in a blended learning research methods class: Examining student learning, engagement, and affective outcomes. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32 (5), 19–34. Retrieved July 12, 2024, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=120088849&site=ehost-live

Napoles, J. J., & MacLeod, R. B. (2016). Influences of teacher delivery, student engagement, and observation focus on preservice teachers’ perceptions of teaching effectiveness. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 25 (3), 53–64. Retrieved July 12, 2024, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=115288393&site=ehost-live

Oyler, D. D., Romanelli, F., Piascik, P., & Cain, J. (2016). Practical insights for the pharmacist educator on student engagement. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 80 (8), 1–8. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=119593652&site=ehost-live

Quaye, S. J., & Harper, S. R. (Eds.). (2014). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations. London, UK: Routledge.