Perceptions of student engagement at a research-led university

1. Perceptions of student engagement at a research-led university Martin Broadley, School of Biosciences Matthew Charlton, School of Geography Gill Langmack, School of Nursing Jon Peirce, School of Psychology Tracey Sach, School of Community Health Sciences Sean May, Web Designer (Nottingham Arabidopsis Stock Centre) Kate Exley, Learning Set Advisor

2. Outline

3. Outline • Importance of student engagement • Project evolution • Literature review • Web survey • Results • Quantitative • Qualitative • Conclusions • Implications

4. Importance of student engagement

5. Importance of student engagement • Students learn better when they are interested • Less attrition (Staff or student) • Staff morale – nicer to teach pleasant/interested students

6. Importance of student engagement "Ask me my three main priorities for government, and I tell you: education, education, education."

7. Importance of student engagement Increasing student numbers

8. Importance of student engagement Other pressures, such as research

9. Importance of student engagement Students aren’t going to University for the same reasons

10. Project evolution

11. Project evolution - background • How do we engage people in ‘boring’ subjects? • Literature review to define engagement

12. Literature review

13. 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)

14. 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)

15. 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)

16. “Student engagement is easy to recognise . . . . . . but difficult to define operationally” (Haymore et al,1994)

17. 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

18. Web survey

19. Web survey - aims and objectives • Define student engagement • Identify most engaging forms of teaching • Determine factors influencing engagement • How do perceptions differ between: • Staff and students • Schools • Gender, age . . .

20. 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

22. Results

23. Response rate (173 staff, 1456 students)

24. Results – definition of engagement

25. Definition of engagement? Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient = 0.88, t Approximation = 7.96, P < 0.001, d.f. = 19

26. Optional comments (staff) . . . • Definitions of engagement • No idea • Teacher driven • Need purpose, relevance and persistence

27. 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

28. Results – what teaching methods are engaging ?

29. What teaching methods are engaging? Categories: 0 = not at all, 1 = weakly, 2 = moderately, 3 = strongly $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).

30. Results – factors affecting engagement

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

32. Factors affecting engagement • 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)

33. 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

34. Factors affecting engagement - feedback Categories: 0 = no feedback given, 1 = sometimes, 2 = often, 3 = always $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).

35. Who initiates feedback? Who gives feedback? Types of feedback Impediments Recommendations Factors affecting engagement - feedback

36. 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

37. Factors affecting engagement - research / teaching links Categories: 0 = not at all, 1 = weakly, 2 = moderately, 3 = strongly *Variation was assigned using a residual maximum likelihood analyses (linear mixed model)

38. Factors affecting engagement - research /teaching links • 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

39. 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

40. Discussion

41. 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

42. Implications • Methods of Teaching • Use a variety of teaching methods • Feedback • Provide more (timely) feedback, preferably typed • Research • Include explicit links to research

43. 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)

44. Any Questions?