Perceptions of student engagement at a research-led university Martin Broadley, School of...
-
Upload
horatio-chase -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Perceptions of student engagement at a research-led university Martin Broadley, School of...
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?