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
The purpose of this study was to further the understanding of student engagement and the factors that activate and prompt students to put effort into their studies. More specifically, the study aimed to achieve the following research objectives: - To identify student engagement types. - To develop a model of student engagement. - To determine if engagement preferences were similar across faculties and study years. Data Collection and Research Methodology Data for this study was collected during the yearly “Student Satisfaction Survey (SSS)”. This is an on-line survey every spring and is available in both English and Dutch. An email survey was sent to the 21,262 registered Avans students in the academic year 2008 and 5183 completed surveys were received. Surveys that were not fully completed (n=191) were eliminated from the study thus leaving 4992 fully useable surveys For this study, a mixed method design was employed. A qualitative and quantitative approach was used; the data set was first analysed using a thematic analysis approach to identify themes. After this process was completed, the quantitative phase was undertaken. The model that emerged was studied through both parametric and nonparametric tests. The results of this process can be found in the statistical analysis section of this article. Qualitative Results The additional question that was introduced into the 2008 SSS had three text fields for answering; “one-word response”,“short explanation”, and “long explanation.” The raw data from the first text box (“one word” answer) was used to create a list of keywords for potential themes from the data set. This list produced the indication of possible themes, but was too general and lacked any context since it was generated from a one-word answer. Four categories of engagement types were identified; vocational, academic, personal, and external. Each engagement type contains specific catalysts called ‘triggers”. These triggers are the self-reported reasons as to why students engage. The similarities of the engagement triggers allowed the clustering into engagement types. For example, some triggers concerned external validation and organizational issues while others centred on practice based interest and future
Vocational
• Future Career Orientation • Practiced Based
Academic
• Strategic Approach • Quality of Program • Organizational Issues
Personal
• Level of Challenge • Personal Interesest
External
• Social Aspects • Validation • Teacher and Support
Explanation of the different engagement types and triggers: • Strategic Approach Trigger: this trigger involves direct rewards and can be defined as a “Quid pro quo” approach to engagement. Students engage due to pending assessments or to gain the best result. • Teacher and Support Trigger: this theme can be described as having aspects coming from how teachers operate in the educational setting as well as the amount of support that the student perceives. • Future Career Orientation Trigger: the idea of this theme has elements of future ideas either in a specific sector or their anticipated job. • Practice Based Trigger: this theme can be described as having aspects of what students have described as to be related to the day-to-day practice of a profession; emphasis on perceived real-life issues and authentic situations. • Level of Challenge Trigger: the idea of this theme has elements of academically difficult and challenging educational activities. • Personal Interest: Seen as important to the student or what the student perceives as being connected to or in agreement with their personal interests. • Social Aspects Trigger: this theme puts an emphasis on the social context of learning; through other student’s motivation, effort, and enthusiasm. • Quality of Program Trigger: this theme covers issues relating to aspects of the education at the faculty/department level. Issues that can be causes or improved within the students own faculty or department. • Organizational Issues Trigger: the theme is related to higher organizational issues related to the university itself; all issues that can be seen in the services from an institution. • Validation Trigger: this theme can be described as extrinsic social recognition generally from family and friends. Quantitative Results In the following section, the different engagement types and triggers will be analyzed from various aspects such as previous education, gender, year of study, and discipline. Due to the fact that this research project stems, in part, from a doctorial thesis, the full analysis is too large to fully present in this current article. However, the most relevant results are presented here. There are three national levels of eduEngagement triggers cation that are traditionally eligible for are significantly entry into higher vocational education different between (hbo): senior general secondary education first-year students (havo), university preparatory education and upper-level (vwo), and secondary vocational education (mbo). A fourth category of previous students. educational level can be found within our student population. This includes diplomas from foreign countries, miscellaneous certificates and credit for prior learning. There were no significantly different distribution when analyzing previous education and the engagement types. When analyzing previous education and engagement triggers, a significantly different distribution is revealed. However, this significance is due to the engagement trigger “Teacher and Support”. Students from the previous education group “other” have a significantly higher percen-
O n d e r zo e k van Ond e r wijs Jaarg ang 40 / d e ce mb e r 2011
59
Table 1 Engagement triggers and previous education Engagement Triggers
senior general secondary education
Secondary vocational education
university preparatory education
Other
Future Career Orientation
9.60%
9.30%
8.60%
7.80%
Level of Challenge
7.40%
7.30%
10.20%
7.10%
Organizational Issues
2.40%
2.70%
1.70%
2.70%
Personal Interest
17.20%
16.20%
18.00%
13.50%
Practice Based
18.90%
17.30%
19.80%
20.80%
Quality of Program
5.40%
6.60%
6.10%
8.50%
Social Aspects
9.00%
8.60%
6.70%
5.90%
Strategic Approach
17.50%
16.90%
16.20%
13.50%
Teacher and Support
10.50%
12.60%
11.10%
18.80%
Validation
2.00%
2.60%
1.70%
1.40%
(Ď&#x2021;² = 59.30, df = 27, p <.001) for practice based. The study years 2, 3, 4, 5+ have been grouped together since there was no significantly different distributions among those study years. 25.00% 20.00% Percentage of Population
tage of this trigger. However, this previous education type comprised approximately 12% of new first-year students. The remaining 88% of first-year students was comprised of the other previous education types (havo: 49%, mbo: 30% and vwo: 9%). For these three types, there was no significantly different distribution (see table 1). The distribution of engagement types is significantly different between men and women. Women have a higher preference (29.6%) for the academic engagement type than males (26.2%). When analysing engagement triggers, a significant difference between men and women is also revealed. This can be attributed to the engagement trigger practice based (men = 19.1%, women = 16.7%) and to the engagement trigger teacher and support (men = 10.4%, women = 12.9%). Specifically analysing engagement triggers and year of study reveals two triggers that have significantly different distributions: strategic approach and practice based. Year 1 had significantly higher percentage for the strategic approach and Year 2+ had a significantly higher percentage
15.00%
10.00%
Practice Based
Strategic Approach
5.00% 0.00%
Students from different disciplines also show significantly different distributions for engagement types. Fine arts
Table 2 Engagement per Disciplines Engagement Type Discipline
Vocational
Personal
Academic
External
Financial Management
33.80%
20.10%
26.90%
19.20%
Fine Arts
12.10%
32.20%
22.30%
33.30%
Business
29.20%
21.30%
27.20%
22.30%
Communications and Media
20.40%
26.80%
24.40%
28.40%
Engineering and Technology
27.20%
27.80%
26.20%
18.70%
Health Sciences
32.80%
25.90%
21.90%
19.40%
Education
38.40%
22.60%
19.50%
19.50%
Social Work
29.20%
22.70%
22.00%
26.10%
Law
27.90%
27.50%
26.70%
17.90%
60 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
students reported having only 12.1% vocational engagement type as opposed to Financial Management students (33.8%) and Education students (38.4%). For the personal and external engagement types, fine arts students reported having 32.2% and 33.3% as opposed to Financial Management students (20.1% and 19.2%) and Education students (22.6% and 19.5%). See table 2 for all faculties and engagement types. Discussion The reasons that students engage in their studies do not seem to be related to their previous education. The only exception is the students with the type of “other”. This could be explained by many international students who hold a foreign secondary education diploma. These student reported higher levels for the trigger teacher and support. There is, however, evidence that engagement is related to discipline. Education students reported significantly higher levels (22.6%) for the engagement type vocational as opposed to fine art students (12.1%). Additional evidence that engagement types are related to disciplines can be demonstrated by the similarity between fine arts students and communications and media students. These two disciplines are highly creative in nature, but differ in the media they employ: canvas and clay as opposed to multimedia, but their students’ engagement types and triggers do not significantly differ. Business students reported (27.2%) high levels for the engagement type academic as opposed to education students (19.5%) The prevalence of the academic engagement type in firstyear students is explainable in a Dutch higher education context due to the requirement to earn the first-year certificate [propedeuse]. The predominant trigger in this engagement type is “strategic approach.” Students need to earn a minimum amount of credits to continue their studies. This external pressure is not as dominant in the upper-level years of a study program. It might be correct to assert that once students enter the second year that outside pressure no longer acts as motivator and students shift to a more internal motivator such as “practice based.” Practical Implications of Engagement Types and Triggers Student engagement throughout the study years The additional understanding as to how engagement changes throughout the study years must be viewed as a strong contribution arising from this study. This study suggests that there is a large difference between year 1 and final study years in terms of engagement. As with the supposition that “educationally purposeful activities” are of equal relevance across disciplines, there seems to exist a similar conclusion for study year. The question is “Are all educationally purposeful activities created equal?” Looking at first-year students and upper-level students, significant differences in the reasons that student engage is revealed. If the reasons that student engage change due to the study year, one might conclude that the activities that are needed to elicit engagement across the study years are also equally different. University Engagement Policies Administrators need to take into account student engagement as a possible strategic focus in the palette of univer-
sity initiatives in attempting to increase student retention. With rising attrition rates in the Netherlands, university policies and interventions should be based on research which has strongly showed that engaged students are less likely to prematurely exit higher education (Kuh et al., 2008) and attain higher levels of academic success (Astin, 1984; Tinto, 1993; Pascarella, Seifert, & Whitt, 2008). University policies surrounding student engagement should focus not solely on the student’s behaviour but also on the interaction between students (Tinto, 1975; Kuh et al., 2008; Kuh, 2009a) and the “Institutional habitus” of that university (Thomas, 2002). Chosen Pedagogical Climate for Engagement Furthermore, curricular choices that affect the pedagogical climate need to be chosen with students’ specific engagement types/triggers in mind. In the following paragraphs each engagement type will be discussed in relation to the pedagogical climate and engagement. Academic Engagement Type Taking the effect of the first-year certificate [propedeuse] on year 1 student engagement, the effectiveness of assessments to capture students’“study time” (Gibbs, 2010) should be investigated. However, the pedagogical choice should not be to increase classroom time in preparation for assessments. This “focus on the classroom could be interpreted as a recognition of the failure to generate much out of class learning through the type of assessment teachers use” (Gibbs, 2010). The type of assessments used, by teachers, needs to be evaluated in terms of its effect on student study behaviour.
Curricular choices that affect the pedagogical climate need to be chosen with students’ specific engagement types/ triggers in mind.
Personal Engagement Type Students with personal engagement reported significantly more hours per week studying than students with academic or vocational engagement. In-line with self-determination theory (SDT), students who choose to engage due to personal interests and seeking a challenge, will display a qualitatively different type of motivation. In this study students with a personal engagement type reported more hours of study. It is also asserted (Simons, Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Lacante, 2004; Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006) that these student will frame their goals in terms of intrinsic motivators (personal interests) and thus be more likely to adopt a deep-approach to learning.
External Engagement Type When students choose to engage due external factors such as social recognition, quality of the social context of learning and organizational issues, it generally undermines their sense of autonomy (Niemiec et al., 2006; Vansteenkiste et al., 2006). This has important consequences for the students’ well being as well as, learning process. According to SDT extrinsic motivating factors are perceived as controlling and thus making it more difficult to link these goals to the individual’s goals. However in this study students with external engagement reported more hours of study. Vocational Engagement Type When students choose to engage, due to an orientation to the future career or the perception that the educati-
O n d e r zo e k van Ond e r wijs Jaarg ang 40 / d e ce mb e r 2011
61
onal activities are rooted in real-life issues concerning a profession, it generally increases their sense of autonomy, enhances their sense of well being and increases the chance that students will be able to link participation in the educational activities (present behaviour) with their own future goals (future intrinsic goal framing). Pedagogical choices to utilize this engagement type must be rooted in authentic learning situations and quality contact with current professional practitioners. Fostering Successful Teaching The “Teacher and support” engagement trigger was reported by more than 10% of students. However, the role of teachers in the engagement triggers “personal interest” and “practice based” should also be taken into account. Since student interests and the future profession need to form a crucial part of the study program, teachers need to keep this in mind when choosing and developing material for lessons. This is also valid to the extent that the future career profession is used as a backdrop in those lessons. There is a large body of evidence demonstrating the connection between effective instruction and learning (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Pascarella et al., 2008), for example by allowing more autonomy in the lessons and classrooms, students should be able to make use of their personal interest and goals during formal contact as well as self-study (Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002). References Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 261-278. Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1984). Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518-29.
Gibbs, G. (2010). Using assessment to support student learning. Leeds: Leeds Metropolitan University. Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(141), 5-20. Niemiec, C. P., Lynch, M. F., Vansteenkiste, M., Bernstein, J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). The antecedents and consequences of autonomous self-regulation for college: A self-determination theory perspective on socialization. Journal of adolescence, 29(5), 761-775. Pace, C. R. (1982). Achievement and the Quality of Student Effort. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students : findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/ catdir/description/wiley037/90046068.html Pascarella, E. T., Seifert, T. A., & Whitt, E. J. (2008). Effective instruction and college student persistence: Some new evidence. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2008(115), 55-70. Simons, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Lacante, M. (2004). Placing motivation and future time perspective theory in a temporal perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 16(2), 121-139. Steinberg, L., & Silverberg, S. B. (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence. Child Development, 57(4), 841-851. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college : rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago ; London: University of Chicago Press. Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19-31.
62 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