How can we better engage our students?

Student Engagement Analysis

Abstract

The definitions of student engagement tend to promote similar ideas about academic success and achievement, along with institutional buy-in and commitment. As theories surrounding student engagement continue to be a point of emphasis in research and study, higher education has as whole all have different ways of applying engagement. The differences across the board reflect the evolving individual needs of students, and the nuances of institution’s abilities to provide and sustain facilities built for promoting student engagement. This paper categorizes student engagement based on two components and synthesizes that with current research and opinion. Considering engagement as whole, this paper also evaluates the various infrastructures that support or challenge engagement. This will include addressing theoretical frameworks on academic achievement, models on individual motivations, and visions for higher education in the future.

Defining Student Engagement

           Higher education is an empty and desolate field with little life and vegetation without the fullness enriched with student engagement. There are formulas for equations, theories for social and physical sciences, and applications for positions and experiences. These things and more on paper equate to the acquisition of knowledge and application of learning. Does any of that speak directly to the meaning of student engagement? It can, but it must go further.

I grew up homeschooled through part of elementary and middle school. During that time, my mother structured the basics of math, reading, writing, science, and history. She encouraged my own interest in words by expanding my English curriculum in word study practice with repetition through interactive games. I would get up before school and study those words; it felt like play. This led to my interest in the craft of writing. In another period of my life, throughout my undergraduate degrees at both four-year and two-year institutions, I was active as a student leader working with first and second-semester freshman, and students on academic probation through mentoring and advising programs. In some ways, this led to a journey in working with young adults and desiring to study higher education. These two periods of my learning characterize the idea of student engagement and help define the principles that support the theories.

How Engagement is Formed

           Student engagement differs across the American higher education system. Different states serve unique populations with different interests. While education is encouraged and promoted by the formal institutions, higher education at large is funded and supported across the country in a variety of ways. This means student engagement is a moving target subject to change on varied circumstances. Certain theories and models emphasize ideas that help ground how engagement is formed. The Document Effective Educational Practices (Project DEEP) emphasizes two major parts of student engagement: the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and activities, and how the institutions allocate and organize human and other resources to provide opportunities for students to develop and succeed (Schuh et al., 2016). This definition provides an overview to begin this discussion.

           It is imperative to highlight Tinto (1975, 1993) and his theories on student engagement. Tinto (1975) emphasizes the students’ connection to the college environment, positing that students arrive to college with a variety of influences both born and nurtured that creates their motivation for committing to the institution and subsequent degree attainment (Schuh et al., 2016). This framework is important in understanding the connection between societal and cultural changes to the academic environment. This interconnection should bind together the mission of the institution with the students’ needs, as the students bring their socially influenced view to the campus. While various institutions go about this differently, one perspective to consider is the difference between nonorganic and organic engagement on campus.

Nonorganic and Organic Effectiveness

           The college infrastructure as related to student engagement that is being emphasized here is about the activity and commitment by the individual students and the extent that the university provides services available for fostering success and achievement. Both forms of engagement are effective, while both must exist independently, and both should emphasize one another. Hastings et al. (2015) analyzes the generativity of college students through mentoring and leadership programs. They note the importance of student leadership on campus through mandatory and elective participation, and that it leads to creating empowered students who give to students who may need extra guidance or support. Also, those empowered students take those traits out into the world after college. The students required to participate get to learn from someone they can relate to and get more attention to skills they need to develop. First year mentoring and advising programs (and their varied names across the country) are a staple to many institutions, along with required mentoring courses with faculty or professionals. They are often very structured and financed heavily by the institution. The root of engagement must be built by the students and nonorganic methods can sometimes feel forced; therefore, organic engagement is necessary.

           The models of student affairs are often divided into two categories of traditional and innovative, and within the traditional models include three areas: out-of-classroom-centered, administrative-centered, and learning-centered (Schuh et al., 2016). This emphasizes that both nonorganic and organic methods are needed. Student clubs that form based on ideologies, beliefs, and interest promote community through student autonomy and agency. This allows the students to develop their own creativity and nurture their gifts, forming natural bonds which characterizes adult relationships. While the institution supports and oversees many of these clubs, they are primarily formed and preserved by the students. They encourage participation and membership. Higher education needs dedication to both nonorganic and organic forms. These methods of engagement must be entangled together by each supporting and emphasizing the other. Most traditional views of engagement do not focus online education, but as the world develops its presence is unavoidable.

Online Engagement

           There is growing research and opinion about online education. Many of the views are polarizing. While educational systems are quick to bemoan this form of education, it remains both possible and prevalent in higher education. For example, community colleges are known for reaching nontraditional student bodies, and these campuses provide online options just as much as their in-person courses. The diverse needs of students with their family and job commitments prevent them from meeting the schedule demands of traditional on campus studies (Sublett 2019). Four-year institutions’ student bodies are increasingly diverse and nontraditional, just as two-year institutions have always been – there will be a continue trend towards the need for online services. Another popular trend is massive open online course (MOOC). MOOCs are important as they promote access and availability but often concerns of quality are questioned. Hew (2018) studied the impacts of MOOCs across a large span of programs and concluded that both impactful faculty engagement and available support services were the main concerns for the students in the classes. They found that lecture videos and video office hours meetings produced favorable results, along with widely available opportunities for tutoring and advising (Hew 2018). Just as the in-person classroom has hindrances along with issues on campus, another way to consider online education is that it is just another method of education with its own hindrances.

           The question of online education’s effectiveness will remain. Choe et al. (2015) evaluated student satisfaction and learning with online coursework. Part of the focus was on the instructional tools available (cameras, tablets, audio and video file) and another piece to this was that, for online programs to remain effective there must be distinct connection between faculty and the administrative professionals. This point highlights nothing new about the professional relationships between the classroom and the institution at large but serves as a reminder that the professional services at the institution must possess a similar vision. It is not just about the effectiveness of the online program that creates successful student engagement, but it is also a critical synthesis of administrative support of the faculty’s tools and resources. This alters the view on the value of online education, while affirming the need for togetherness with all parts of the institution.

Innovation and Creativity

           Colleges have remained a place where innovation and creativity is furthered, particularly by the students interest in their studies and activities. This leads to revolutionized professional industries. How can higher education imagine creative ways to revolutionize the way they engage their students, evolving their professional industry? Schuh et al., (2016) notes multiple models for innovative ways to center student engagement. One method is the Ethic of Care Model, which embodies a belief that all students with support and care can succeed. The priority here is seeing the possibility in every student. Another method is the Student-Driven Model, that emphasizes organic methods of engagement for students that allow them to blossom, furthered by the institution through minimal guidance and readily available financial and resource support (Schuh et al., 2016). How can institutions be innovative and creative in the future for promoting student engagement? Consider the value of every student brings, empowering them in academic of social freedom, and working to provide services that reach their academic needs and push their natural gifts to the front. It is about mindset and paradigm shifts in value and contribution.

Conclusion

           If higher education is considered a field open grass, over time it has blossomed not just as society has industrialized and advanced technologically. It has grown plenty, because it has developed places nurturing learners of all ages and demographics to integrate new ideas about life, advancements in different industries, and sustain continued efforts for academic achievement. The integral component of this is student engagement. This rests in an understanding that is both about enlivening the natural gifts each student has in their own potential, paired with institutional commitments to structures and finances needed to further systemic development. In some students, like myself, we are privy to the importance of education at an early age and encounter a desire for a field of study. In other instances, it is found over time. For many students, various college programs and initiatives spark growth and development promoting engaged and committed students. In all situations, institutions must commit their efforts to understanding and evaluating their roots and methods by which they promote student achievement. Higher education is dry and bare without committed work to student success through engagement.

References

Choe, R. C., Scuric, Z., Eshkol, E., Cruser, S., Arndt, A., Cox, R., Toma, S. P., Shapiro, C., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., Barnes, G., & Crosbie, R. H. (2019). Student Satisfaction and Learning Outcomes in Asynchronous Online Lecture Videos. CBE life sciences education, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0171

Hastings, L. J., Creswell, J. W., Griesen, J. V., Dlugosh, L. L., & Hoover, R. E. (2015). Generativity in college students: Comparing and explaining the impact of mentoring. Journal of College Student Development, 56(7), 651-669. https://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.proquest.com%2Fdocview%2F1731521333%3Faccountid%3D

Hew, K. F., Chen, Q., & Tang, Y. (2018). Understanding student engagement in large-scale open online courses: A machine learning facilitated analysis of Student’s reflections in 18 highly rated MOOCs. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3) https://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.proquest.com%2Fdocview%2F2092568351%3Faccountid%

Sublett, C. (2019). What Do We Know About Online Coursetaking, Persistence, Transfer, and Degree Completion Among Community College Students? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 43(12), 813-828. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2018.1530620

Schuh, J. H., Jones, S. R., & Torres, V. (Eds.). (2016). Student services: A handbook for the profession. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com