Each week, Google Scholar reminds me that I’m behind in my reading.  Is it the same for you?  It’s probably not surprising that we cannot keep up with the deluge of literature on student engagement.  A Google Scholar phrasal search for ‘student engagement’ revealed 916 000 entries in total, with 20 800 items published since 2022. 

On the 29 August the Student Engagement SIG met to discuss some recent research. The robust conversations that ensued spoke of our shared and genuine desire to reach and teach students.  Below you will find key elements of each of the papers we discussed, as well as some of the questions we addressed.

Padillo-Petry, P., Pérez-Hernando, S., Rodríguez Rodríguez, J., & Vidal-Martí, C. (2022). Comparing teachers’ and students’ perspectives of student engagement in higher education: Between performativity and invisibility. International Education Studies, 15(6), 84-93. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v15n6p84

Summary of article from abstract: Few studies have compared teachers’ and students’ perspectives on [student engagement]. …This article presents the results of a quantitative study about definitions and indicators of student engagement carried out with 118 students and 45 teachers… The results confirm the performativity associated with the concept by both teachers and students, and reveal that students may appreciate silent and invisible engagement more than teachers. The results also show that teachers may conflate signs of student engagement with good academic results and learning, risking an oversimplification of both student engagement and learning.

Our key questions/provocations from the artilce:

• Do the outcomes of this study ring true?  Do you think there are  differences between your perceptions of engagement and those of your students?
• How do we address the inconsistencies within research on student engagement? The findings indicate  “students’ three lowest-rated indicators of student engagement were ‘be a student representative’, ‘turn on the webcam in online classes’ and ‘participate in extracurricular activities’” (89) and yet on “Two of the three proposals by students were to make webcam activation and class participation compulsory and reduce the size of the groups” (90). 

Rotar, O. (2022). A missing theoretical element of online higher education student attrition, retention, and progress: a systematic literature review. SN Soc Sci 2, 2, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00550-1

Summary of article from abstract: Online learning technologies have facilitated higher education in many ways, making it more flexible and available for learners with multiple life and work responsibilities. Yet information regarding graduation rates suggests that the vast majority of online learners drop out. By systematically analysing 30 empirical studies published between 2009 and 2020, this paper aims to highlight factors critical for online students’ attrition, retention, or progress, focusing on the adult student population. Four groups of factors influencing adult students’ online learning were identified: (a) student factors, (b) course factors, (c) social factors, and (d) support factors. These four groups are analysed and discussed in light of selected theoretical models on student attrition, retention, and progress. The results show that student support remains a missing element in these models. Finally, recommendations based on the study findings are offered.

Our key questions/provocations from the artile:

• In the findings, one of the student factors linked to success was relevant experiences: “Past research demonstrated that students with little or no online learning experience are at greater risk of attrition” (8). Given this, when do we teach students how to learn online?
• Another student factor within the findings was student skills: “There is substantial evidence for the effect of student skills on student attrition, retention, and online learning progress. This ranges from the ability to effectively allocate time and make realistic timetables, to academic self-efficacy, self-regulation, and self-discipline” (9).  How and when do we teach these study skills within our courses?  

Sanjit, R.J., Arnold, J., Singh, G., & Chakraborti, R. (2023). Decision comfort and student engagement in higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2023.2186558

Summary of article from abstract: Although engagement in the classroom is pivotal for student success, a robust understanding of the means to enhance student engagement is quite scarce. Thus, this study examines a robust research framework to have a better understanding of student engagement…. Results show that co-production behaviour and decision comfort are prominent drivers of student engagement. Results also show that decision comfort mediates the path between students’ goal intention and student engagement.

Our key questions/provocations from the article:

• This article used language that implied a commodification of learning e.g. customers.  How does that sit with your understanding of teaching and learning in the higher education sector?
• Do you agree with the following definition?  Could it be problematic with our cohort? “The behavioural component of student engagement incorporates students’ active involvement in both academic and extracurricular activities. The emotional component of student engagement develops an emotional bond with her teachers, classmates, academics and school. … Finally, the cognitive component of student engagement is a mental state in which students are willing to engage in long study hours regularly (Rotgans & Schmidt, 2011; Salas-Pilco et al., 2022)” (4).

Notably, there was a common theme within all three articles.  Collectively, and positively, they suggested that sustained research on student engagement has improved both our understanding of engagement, and our informed use of EdTech to support engagement. Unfortunately, and even confusingly, the articles also indicated that this enhanced knowledge does not always equate with enhanced student engagement and retention.  This is why we must continue to focus on praxis, and the intersectionality between student engagement research and our practice as educators.