Student engagement is a central concern of higher education policy and practice, driven largely by government and regulatory pressures (for example those around retention, continuation and completion rates and degree outcomes). Despite considerable activity in the field, a wide-ranging review found that the proportion of well-designed studies was modest (less than 2%) [1].

The team from Bangor University and Grwp Llandrillo Menai was funded by QAA Cymru in May 2021 to undertake a review of interventions broadly in the field of student engagement in learning, to develop a definition of a good quality intervention and to identify the best of these. This toolkit is based on that search and can be searched using the measures impacted by the intervention to support strategic decision making in issues relating to engagement or it can searcher by approach or method taken to support practitioners or practitioner-researchers who want to improve students’ engagement within a single class or cohort.

The full report can be found here:

https://www.qaa.ac.uk//en/membership/collaborative-enhancement-projects-cymru/student-engagement-in-learning.

1. Evans C, with Muijs D, & Tomlinson D. Engaged student learning: high impact strategies to enhance student achievement. York: Higher Education Academy, 2015.

Our study also comprised of an analysis of routine data, to understand factors that might impact on students’ use of recourses and attendance at timetabled events and a focus group study of student by discipline. Combining several sets of data (Blackboard ultra, google meet and moodle). In all these cases, we found a clear picture of high initial engagement during the first few weeks of teaching, followed by lesser peaks immediately prior to assessment. While this was the case across programmes and disciplines, these varied considerably within Bangor University’s 3 colleges, potentially masking disciplinary differences. The results strongly indicate that student attendance and engagement with learning materials is driven by initial orientation and assessment.

The final element was a focus group study across both institutions. This found that students used peer-to-peer learning to understand teaching, to test concepts, to prepare for assessments and make sense of feedback. Those in the FE reported that their positive engagement was often catalysed by their lecturer.

The full report can be found here: https://www.qaa.ac.uk//en/membership/collaborative-enhancement-projects-cymru/student-engagement-in-learning.

Interest in student engagement has increased rapidly alongside increased participation in HE, steps towards marketization and increased government scrutiny, often linked to funding. The National Survey of Student Engagement, introduced in the US in 2000, is mirrored in similar large-scale surveys such as the NSS, which has equivalents in Australia, Canada, South Korea, China, Japan, New Zealand, Mexico, Ireland and South Africa Wales (Coates and McCormick, 2014).

The concept of student engagement is broad. A literature review conducted for the HEA that drew on over 21,000 academic papers (Evans, Muijs and Tomlinson, 2015) of which 273 met their quality criteria.

Based on the review, the authors offer the following definition:

“The concept of student engagement suggests positive involvement in programmes through active participation and interaction at a class level. Often underpinning this assertion is the assumption that any activities that get students more involved are a positive step towards improving the quality of student learning”. Evans, Muijs and Tomlinson, 2015: 10.

An earlier definition has behavioural, psychological and socio-cultural dimensions:

“Student engagement is concerned with the interaction between the time, effort and other relevant resources invested by both students and their institutions intended to optimise the student experience and enhance the learning outcomes and development of students and the performance, and reputation of the institution.” Trowler, 2010: 3.

Zepke & Leach (2010) also provide a broad definition a conceptual organizer for student engagement that consists of four perspectives identified in the research. These were: student motivation; transactions between teachers and students; institutional support; and engagement for active citizenship. They also synthesize findings from these perspectives as ten propositions for improving student engagement in higher education.

Criticisms

Broadly speaking, the literature on student engagement focuses on active and experiential learning and explores the effects of these practices on student perceptions of teaching (Evans, Muijs and Tomlinson, 2015). The literature has been criticised for being based on pre-existing biases (for example the uncritical acceptance of the positive effects of student participation in class), for its lack of a critical pedagogical perspective, and for failing to critically evaluate learning gain nor to report long-term effects (Gourlay, 2017, McFarlane and Tomlinson, 2017, Evans, Muijs and Tomlinson, 2016).

Coates, H. and McCormick, A. (2014) Introduction: Student Engagement—A Window into Undergraduate Education. In: H. Coates and A. McCormick,

Engaging University Students, Singapore, Springer Science and Business pp.1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4585-63-7

Evans, C., with Muijs, D., and Tomlinson, D. (2015) Engaged student learning: high impact strategies to enhance student achievement. York: Higher Education Academy

Gourlay, L. (2017) Student engagement, ‘learnification’ and the sociomaterial: critical perspectives on higher education policy, Higher Education Policy, 30(1) pp. 23-34

Macfarlane, B., and Tomlinson, M. (2017) Critical and alternative perspectives on student engagement. Higher Education Policy, 30(1), pp.1-4

Trowler, V. (2010) Student Engagement Literature Review. The Higher Education Academy. www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/studentengagementliteraturereview_1.pdf

Zepke, N. and Leech, L., (2010) Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education. 11 (3): 167-177 https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787410379680

During the first year of our study, we sought to explore student engagement through three separate strands of work. Data profiles of students strongly suggested that interventions in assessment and feedback might be the most effective means of modifying students’ attendance and use if materials. A focus group study by disciplinary group and FE/HE students alongside student in a traditional HE context, suggested some disciplinary and contextual differences in relation to motivation, attitudes to independent study, social learning, belonging and factors likely to support retention and progression. While participant views were inevitably informed by the experience of blended learning, we noted striking similarities in the perceived importance of peer-to-peer leaning either in a physical setting or online were noted across groups. Informal peer-to-peer learning was perceived by students as being fundamental to confirm their knowledge and to test ideas, to deal with uncertainty, to understand feedback and to gauge one’s own performance immediately after assessment. Different structures in the HE/FE and HE context supported different patterns of social learning.

Our review focused on interventions that claimed to improve student engagement. As such, we did not examine reviews or opinion pieces in any detail. It indicates that good quality research in engagement focuses on lecturer-lead methods and most explore their effects on student performance. Social learning is not widely used as a basis for well-designed interventions although some high-quality interventions including those of at risk groups focus on staff-student relationships or include elements of peer-to-peer teaching.