Artikel
Towards a model of student engagement: Identifying engagement triggers in Dutch higher vocational education. Brian P. Godor, MA, Learning and Innovation Centre, Avans University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands
What motivates students to work harder for their studies? Why students choose to engage in certain activities and whether there is a link between these engagement scales and actual performance? Introduction Often teachers, administrators and politicians believe that young aspiring professionals lack motivation or worse, a desire to work hard. On the other hand, students, when presented certain assignments or projects, do put the effort in and can been seen working late in the library or in project groups that can be found in all corners of the campus. This effort, both physically (hours of study) and psychologically (think and discussing) are the characteristics of engagement (Astin, 1975). The benefits of students engaging in their study have been well documented. But why students engage is less known. This study surveyed over 5000 students asking them that exact question: Why do you put effort into your studies? Background of Study With attrition rates in the Netherlands ranging from 16% for first-year students leaving higher education in the first year, to 30% for first-year students leaving higher education institutions (The Netherlands Association of Universities of Applied Sciences, 2010), the need to understand the origins and causes of attriThe benefits of tion is crucial. In order to gain understanstudents engaging ding into what motivates our students, an in their study are additional question concerning students’ well documented. motivation concerning their study effort But why students was inserted into the “Student Tevredenengage is less heidsonderzoek” (“Student Satisfaction Survey 2008-2009”: SSS) The question known. introduced was: “Wanneer of waardoor span jij je echt extra in voor je opleiding?” [When/why do you put more effort into your studies?] The question had three possible fields for answering; three text boxes were available: “one word”,“short explanation”, and “long explanation.” The evolution of engagement as an educational concept Given the fact that engagement has been in the literature for more than seventy years, its meaning has evolved over time (Kuh, 2009). Changing from Astin’s “Student involvement” (Astin, 1975), Pace’s (1982) work on the quality of student effort, “Social and academic integration” from Tinto (1975) to Kuh’s notion of “educationally purposeful activities” (Kuh, 2009).
Astin (1975) used the term “student involvement” and defined it as “the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience”. Student involvement resembles “closely what the learning theorists have traditionally referred to as vigilance or timeon-task”. Astin’s work focused on the level of involvement from the student. Pace (1982) shifted the focus of the debate to the quality of student effort. Pace asserts: “surely the students are also accountable for the amount, scope, and quality of effort they invest in their own learning and development, and specifically, in using the facilities and opportunities that are available in the college setting”. Kuh (2009) defines engagement as the “quality of effort and involvement in productive learning activities”. Yet, the previous research generally focuses on behaviours that research has linked with good educational practice. However, two main ideas are not addressed in this approach: why students choose to engage in these activities and whether there is a link between these engagement scales and actual performance? While giving a solid overview as to the behaviours thought to be linked to achievement, insight can only be gained as to which student behaviours could be increased, but why students are choosing or not choosing to engage at that particular institution is not identified. Engagement in educational activities could be seen, according to self determination theory (SDT) theory, as satisfying one of the three psychological needs; “autonomy, competence and relatedness”. SDT characterizes the need for autonomy as “experiencing a sense of choice, endorsement, and volition with respect to initiating, maintaining, and terminating behavioural engagement” (Niemiec et al., 2006). Steinberg & Silverberg (1986) assert that the need for competence becomes increasingly more a concern for individuals entering middle childhood as opposed to their earlier years when autonomy was the focus of concern. The need for relatedness is described as a feeling of belongingness. Additionally, self-determination theory posits the notion that intrinsic interest or internalized importance can have a positive effect on performance and effort (Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006). Gibbs (2010) asserts that the effectiveness of assessments should be judged in terms of student engagement in the preparation for these assessments. Gibbs asserts that assessments, if properly employed, can help guide students effort in their study. “Assessment makes more difference to the way that students spend their time, focus their effort, and perform, than any other aspect of the courses they study, including the teaching” (Gibbs, 2010).
58 O n d e r zo e k va n O n d e r w i js Ja arg ang 40 / d e ce mb e r 2011