Contents
Presenters
Dr Thomas Robinson – Senior Lecturer in Marketing, Associate Dean of Student Experience, Bayes Business School
Paper
Marketisation of Higher Education has intensified the focus on student feedback, such as surveys and student-staff liaison group, to identify areas for improvement and understand what drives student engagement (Mandouit, 2018). The aim is to support a co-created learning experience where educators and learners collaborate in shaping education (Kaminskiene et al., 2020). However, this approach has two significant drawbacks: 1) Student responses don’t align with their actual behaviour – a phenomenon described as response bias or intention-behavior gap – resulting in misdirected engagement strategies (Wetzel et al., 2016); and 2) co-creation risks excluding the most vulnerable students who may be unable to participate due to “apathy and social disconnectedness” (Marshall, 2008; Sashittal et al., 2012), seriously compromising institutional commitments to equal opportunity for learners. We present a framework that uses objective tools and metrics to systematically identify at risk disengaged students and implement targeted intervention. Our approach focuses on quality assurance and enhancement of the learning environment through active interventions. Using a data analytics system, we classified students as red, amber, and green depending on a) their level of engagement with the virtual learning environment and b) attendance of mandatory sessions. A newly created student advisor role facilitated follow-up actions – such as phone calls and e-mails – in an approach that offers context-specific student support addressing factors such as cost of living, family context, part time work, commuting, mental health and the implications this carries for professional practice. In our action research approach, we evaluated impacts and adapted new interventions such as mentoring classes for apathetic students. Interventions resulted in significantly improved engagement for 50% of students with effects persisting until the end of the academic term. This could translate in a 50% reduction in student withdrawals, and substantial impact on retained tuition revenue. Our pilot resulted in the fundamental redefinition of engagement strategies shifting stakeholders to change agents, static structures to improvement mechanisms with adaptive governance processes, and institutional outcomes from qualifications to long-term learner development. Most importantly, it gave marginalized learners a voice in shaping their own education.
Keywords: Engagement, Action Research, Discursive Reframing, Data Analytics,
Attendees will learn about how student experiences at the micro-level and institutional structures at the macro-level are mutually constitutive. We propose that a discursive reorientation among stakeholders can realign the educational trajectory for students.
Introduction and problem statement
Literature review of the engagement construct
Action Research methodology
Presentation of 3 cycles of intervention
Conclusion: critical discussion of the engagement construct, applications and next steps, limitations, generalisability.
References
Bryson, C. ed., 2014. Understanding and developing student engagement (pp. 1-22). Abingdon: Routledge.
Carini, R.M., Kuh, G.D. and Klein, S.P., 2006. Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in higher education, 47, pp.1-32.
Groccia, J.E., 2018. What is student engagement?. New directions for teaching and learning, 2018(154), pp.11-20.
Macfarlane, B. and Tomlinson, M., 2017. Critiques of student engagement. Higher Education Policy, 30, pp.5-21.
McNiff, J., 2013. Action research: Principles and practice. Routledge.
Somekh, B., 2005. Action research. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Taylor, L. & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving Student Engagement. Current Issues in Education, 14(1).
Trowler, V., 2010. Student engagement literature review. The higher education academy, 11(1), pp.1-15.
