Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
University of the Arts London

Vol. 1 No. 1 (2016)

Research Papers

Exploring student definitions of engagement: A reflexive approach to designing learning activities

Published 2016-01-12

  • Emily Huggard

Abstract

The rise of mass and universal forms of higher education has led to the growing debate, research and theorisation of student engagement. Students are now expected to adhere to institutionalised and behavioural-based definitions of engagement, yet limited research exists that explores students’ perceptions and definitions of engagement. This article represents a first step in defining student engagement from the perspective of the student. Notions and definitions of engagement were gathered through focus groups with students on the BA (Hons) Fashion Public Relations and Communication course at London College of Fashion. The students’ definitions of engagement were then used to design teaching sessions to improve learner engagement based on the students’ own parameters. The results relating to each teaching method aligned with the students’ pre-test definitions of engagement and highlight the array and complexity of discipline specific factors that influence student engagement in art, design and communication based courses. 

Keywords

student engagement, pedagogies of engagement, media and communications, rhetoric, experiential learning, problem-based learning

HTML PDF

Author Biography

Emily Huggard

Lecturer, BA (Hons) Fashion Public Relations and Communication, London College of Fashion

References

  1. Anyangwe, E. (2011) ‘Putting student engagement at the heart of HE – live change best bits’, The Guardian, 26 October. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2011/oct/26/student-engagement-tips (Accessed: 10 February 2015).
  2. Ashwin, P. and McVitty, D. (2015) ‘The meanings of student engagement: implications for policies and practices’, in Curaj, A., Matei, L., Pricopie, R., Salmi, J. and Scott, P. (eds.)The European higher education area: between critical reflections and future policies. Cham: Springer, pp. 343–359.
  3. Barrows, H.S. (1996) ‘Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: a brief overview’, in Wilkerson, L. and Gijelaers, W.H. (eds.) New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 68. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp. 3–11.
  4. Baturay, M.H. and Bay, O.F. (2010) ‘The effects of problem-based learning on the classroom community perceptions and achievement of web-based education students’, Computers and Education, 55(1), pp. 43–52.
  5. Benecke, R.D. and Bezuidenhout, R.M. (2011) ‘Experiential learning in public relations education in South Africa’, Journal of Communication Management, 15(1), pp. 55–69.
  6. Buckley, A. (2014) UK Engagement Survey 2014. Available at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resource/uk-engagement-survey-2014 (Accessed: 9 December 2015).
  7. Burke, K. (1966) Language as symbolic action: essays on life, literature, and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  8. Chang, J.L., Piket-May, M.J. and Avery, J.P. (1998) ‘Using active student feedback in the learning environment’, in 28th annual Frontiers in Education conference, Vol. 2. Illinois: IEEE/Stipes Publishing, pp. 643–646.
  9. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2000) Research methods in education. 5th edn. London: Routledge Falmer.
  10. DiStaso, M. W., Stacks, D.W. and Botan, C. H. (2009) ‘State of public relations education in the United States: 2006 report on a national survey of executives and academics’, Public Relations Review, 35(3), pp. 254–269.
  11. Fernback, J. (2015) Teaching communication and media studies: pedagogy and practice. New York: Routledge.
  12. Gibbs, G. (2014) ‘Student engagement, the latest buzzword’, Times Higher Education, 1 May. Available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/student-engagement-the-latest-buzzword/2012947.article (Accessed: 2 April 2015)
  13. Heath, R. L. (2001) ‘A rhetorical enactment rationale for public relations: the good organization communicating well’, in Heath, R. L. (ed.) Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 31–50.
  14. Khan, S. (2012) Why long lectures are ineffective. Available at: http://ideas.time.com/2012/10/02/why-lectures-are-ineffective (Accessed: 3 March 2015).
  15. Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  16. Kahn (2014) ‘Theorising student engagement in higher education’, British Educational Research Journal, 20(6), pp. 1005–1018.
  17. Kahu, E.R. (2013) ‘Framing student engagement in higher education’, Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), pp. 758-773.
  18. Krause, K. L. and Coates, H. (2008) ‘Students’ engagement in first-year university’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33 (5), pp. 493–505.
  19. Krueger, R. A. (1988) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
  20. Lau, S. (2014) ‘What does Meadham Kirchoff’s struggle say about the fashion industry?’, i-D, 22 December. Available at: https://i-d.vice.com/en_gb/article/what-does-meadham-kirchhoffs-struggle-say-about-the-fashion-industry (Accessed: December 2015).
  21. Macfarlane, B. (2015) Student performativity in higher education: converting learning as a private space into a public performance, Higher Education Research & Development, 32 (2), pp. 338–350.
  22. McKie, D. and Munshi, D. (2009) ‘Theoretical black holes: a partial A to Z of missing critical thought in public relations’, in Heath, R. L., Toth, E. L. and Waymer D. (eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations II. New York: Routledge, pp. 61–75.
  23. Meyers, C. and Jones, T.B. (1993) Promoting active learning: strategies for the college classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  24. Motion, J. and Burgess, L. (2014) ‘Transformative learning approaches for public relations pedagogy’, Higher Education Research and Development, 33(3), pp. 523–533.
  25. Pascarella, E. T., Seifert, T. A. and Blaich, C. (2010) ‘How effective are the NSSE benchmarks in predicting important educational outcomes?’, Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(1), pp. 6–22.
  26. Poole, S. (2010) ‘The Shallows: how the internet is changing the way we think, read and remember by Nicholas Carr’, The Guardian, 11 September. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/ (Accessed: 4 March 2015).
  27. Shreeve, A., Sims, E. and Trowler, P. (2010) ‘A kind of exchange: learning from art and design teaching', Higher Education Research and Development, 29(2), pp. 125–138.
  28. Smith, K.A., Sheppard, S.D., Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (2005) ‘Pedagogies of engagement: classroom-based practices’, Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), pp. 87–101.
  29. Stead, D.R. (2005) ‘A review of the one-minute paper’, Active Learning in Higher Education, 6(2), pp. 118–131.
  30. Stokes, A.Q. and Waymer, D. (2011) ‘The good organization communicating well: teaching rhetoric in the public relations classroom’, Public Relations Review, 37(5), pp. 441–449.
  31. Todd, V. and Hudson, J. C. (2009) ‘A content analysis of public relations pedagogical research articles from 1998 to 2008: has research regarding pedagogy become less sparse?’, Southwestern Mass Communication Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 43–51.
  32. University of Sheffield (2015) Learning and Teaching Services: Student Focus Groups. Available at: http://www.shef.ac.uk/lets/strategy/resources/evaluate/general/methods-collection/focus-groups (Accessed: 9 December 2015).
  33. Weimer, M. (Ed) (2009) Building student engagement: 15 strategies for the college classroom. Available at: http://www.facultyfocus.com/free-reports/building-student-engagement-15-strategies-for-the-college-classroom/ (Accessed: 24 March 2015).
  34. Willisa, P. and McKie, D. (2011) ‘Outsourcing public relations pedagogy: lessons from innovation, management futures, and stakeholder participation’, Public Relations Review, 37(5), pp. 466–469.
  35. Wilson, K. and Korn, J. H. (2007) ‘Attention during lectures: beyond ten minutes’, Teaching of Psychology, 34(2), pp. 85–89.