Student Engagement: Promoting Better Learning

Student Engagement:Promoting Better Learning

Rick VazAssociate DeanInterdisciplinary and Global StudiesWorcester Polytechnic InstituteWorcester, Massachusetts, USA

Polytechnic of Namibia, 3 May 2006

Worcester Polytechnic Institute

2

What Really Matters in College?

The research is clear: students who are actively involved in both academic and out-of-class activities gain more from the college experience than those who are not so involved.

Ernest T. Pascarella & Patrick T. Terenzini

How College Affects Students


3

Finding Evidence of Educational Quality

• Deep student learning is difficult and expensive to measure directly

• Extensive research has linked certain behaviors and activities to learning

• These behaviors and activities are easier to measure


4

Student Engagement

• Educational involvement that leads students toward significant learning outcomes

• “Engaged students are good learners and effective teaching stimulates and sustains student engagement.” —Handelsman et al.

• An indicator of educational effectiveness


5

Indicators of EngagementIndicators of Engagement

• Time on task• High expectations• Student-faculty contact• Writing and revision• Prompt feedback• Cooperation among students• Respect for diverse talents

and ways of learning


6

National Survey ofNational Survey ofStudent EngagementStudent Engagement

Started in 1999 with 12 institutions – grown to over 500 in NSSE 2005

Over a half million students (first-year students and seniors) at 850 colleges and universities (2000-2005)

Focus on undergraduate quality and institutional improvement

Research-based and extensively tested to ensure validity and reliability

Assesses the extent to which students are engaged in educational practices related to high levels of learning and development


7

NSSE Benchmarks for Educational Practice

1. Level of academic challenge

2. Active and collaborative learning

3. Student interactions with faculty members

4. Enriching educational experiences

5. Supportive campus environment


8

What percentage of US college students study two hours or more for every hour in class?

(a) 12% (b) 20% (c) 31% (d) 39% (e) 49%

Student Engagement Quiz

(a)(a) 12%12%


9

Time on TaskTime on TaskTime Spent Preparing for Class (Per Class Per Week)

Faculty expectation of hours/week

Faculty belief of actual

hours/week

Student reported hours/week from NSSE

Subject Area

Lower Div.

Upper Div.

Lower Div.

Upper Div.

First- Year Senior

Arts and Humanities 5.6 5.7 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.8

Biological/life sciences 6.2 6.0 2.8 3.4 4.0 3.8

Business 5.7 5.7 2.8 3.2 3.0 2.9

Education 4.4 5.1 2.6 3.4 3.3 3.4

Engineering 6.3 6.6 4.1 4.9 3.9 4.3

Physical Sciences 6.6 6.7 3.4 4.2 3.8 4.0

Professional 5.2 5.7 2.9 3.4 3.6 3.8

Social Sciences 5.2 5.6 2.5 3.1 3.4 3.3

Other 5.0 5.4 2.7 3.2 3.1 3.0

Totals 5.6 5.7 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.4


10

How Students Spend Their Time

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

In class P reparing forclass

Working onor off

campus

P articipatingin co-

curricularactivities

Relaxing orsocializing

P rovidingcare for

dependents

Commutingto class

Hou

rs

Doctoral GrantingUniversitiesMaster’s Colleges andUniversitiesLiberal Arts Colleges

Urban Universities


1130

35

40

45

50

55

60

Lowest Major

Average

Highest Major

Business Engineering Other Education Profes-sional

Arts &Humanities

SocialSciences

BiologicalSciences

Math &PhysicalSciences

Management

ChemicalEngineering

MechanicalEngineering

CriminalJustice

Kinesiology

PhysicalEducation

Elem./MiddleEducation

Pharmacy

Pre-Med

Theater orDrama

Speech

PoliticalScience

Sociology

Biochemistry

EnvironmentalScience

Chemistry

Math

InternationalBusiness

Variations in Student-Faculty Interaction by Discipline


12

First-year students

Lower division faculty

SeniorsUpper

division faculty

Class discussions of assignments with diverse perspectives

57% 40% 57% 43%

Received prompt feedback on academic performance

53% 92% 64% 92%

Course emphasizing memorizations 70% 30% 61% 21%

Institutional emphasis on studying & academic work

83% 58% 80% 61%

Student-Faculty Gap Analysis


13

What WPI Learned from NSSE

• 4th year students highly engaged– Project work and research– Interactions with faculty– Collaboration with peers

• 1st year students unengaged – Not working very hard– Not much writing – Not much thinking


14

Pedagogies of Engagement Association of American Colleges and Universities

• Collaborative inquiry• Service learning• Experiential learning• Integrative learning• Project-based learning


15

Enhancing WPI’s First Year: Strategies

• Interdisciplinary seminars

• Societal awareness• Peer learning• Faculty development• Connect academic and

social life• More project work in

courses


16

What Constitutes Project Work?

• “Open-ended” problems

• Many possible solutions

• Goal, methods chosen by learners

• Complexity, ambiguity• Real and messy


17

Key Learning Outcomes of Projects

• Communication and teamwork

• Research, analysis, synthesis

• Problem solving• Critical thinking• “Real world” skills


18

Where Do Project Ideas Come From?

• Faculty—choose project(s) based on experience, challenge, support

• Students—design a project within some parameters

• External sponsors—community organizations, local gov’t and schools, corporations, nonprofits, NGOs


19

Case Study: Introduction to Design

• Sophomore level course ( 7 weeks)

• Preparation for senior design projects– Solving open-ended technical problems– Research, experimentation, simulation, synthesis– Human factors: ergonomics, ethics, economics


20

Example Project: Solar Lighting

You are to design a solar-powered lighting application.

Your design must be suitable for use in the developing world.

Your completed prototype design must cost US$50 or less.


21

Faculty and Student Roles (30 Students)

• Students are in teams of “design engineers”– 10 teams of 3 students on each

• Graduate assistant or undergraduate tutor acts as “senior engineer”– Primary source of technical guidance– Coaches students in teamwork

• Faculty act as “engineering managers”– Consult, critique


22

Structured Activity• 4 classes per week: process of design

– Market analysis, user requirements– Brainstorming, teamwork– Project management, documentation– Standards, safety, ethics, quality

• 3-hour design review each week– Presentation of interim results– Feedback and critique

• Mandatory team meetings with “senior engineers”– Summary report to faculty


23

Assignments and Grading

• Six weekly reports: 30%– Revised for final report

• Final design:– Final report: 15%– Presentation: 10%– Functionality: 15%

• Three exams: 30%– Mostly to make sure they come to class


24

A Different Type of Dialogue• Old scenario:

– Student: “Prof, how do I solve this problem?”– Prof: “Here, watch me do it…”

• New scenario:– Student: “Prof, how do I solve this problem?”– Prof: “I don’t know. What have you tried?”– S: “I think X or Y might work, but I’m not sure…”– P: “How could you test your ideas?”– P: “What are the most important criteria?”– P: “What do your partners think?”


25

Student Course Evaluations

Overall, how much did you learn from this course?

– Almost nothing 1%

– A little 10%

– Quite a lot 57%

– More than any course I’ve taken 32%


26

Impressions from the Faculty

• Worth the effort– Basic knowledge applied and reinforced– The design process learned and applied

• A wake-up call for students– Engagement, commitment– Teamwork, responsibility, pride

• Suggests future work– Improve previous courses– Develop a remediation strategy


27

Our Students Are Not Like Us

• Most faculty learn by reading and writing

• Most students learn by doing

• Universities reward academic abilities

• The real world rewards practical abilities

““How the National Survey of How the National Survey of Student Engagement is Used to Student Engagement is Used to Stimulate Effective Educational Stimulate Effective Educational

Practices”Practices”John HayekNational Survey of Student Engagement

Jillian KinzieNSSE Institute for Effective Educational Practice

AAC&U Pedagogies of Engagement ConferenceApril 2004

Part of this presentation was based on:


29

Questions for Discussion• Are projects feasible for large courses?

• Are projects appropriate at all levels?

• Must projects be “real”?

• Is group work essential?

Documents

Student Engagement: Promoting Better Learning