The last 7 years have seen massive turmoil in Higher Education, particularly in England where the introduction of £9,000 fees was thought likely to deter students from applying to University. That, along with new regulatory measures which put students firmly at the centre of their learning experiences have seen a renewed emphasis on the importance of student engagement, how Universities need to understand what impacts this and how to train their staff to ensure that it happens. Despite negative press coverage about the value of higher education qualifications to student’s future socioeconomic success and wellbeing, student numbers continue to grow across the World. In the past, academic’s taught as they had been taught and much of the research underpinning teaching was grounded in the study of children’s education (pedagogy). Whilst rarely referred to as andragogy, in recent years more and more practitioners in Higher Education are researching the impact of their innovations in learning and teaching and in this edition we see a variety of examples of this research. It’s a challenging field since much research is single institution, single subject and its wider applicability is difficult to discern. However, it provides insights that until funding is available for substantial, multi-subject, multi-discipline studies, we must draw what meaning we can from the work which is published.
All of the papers in this edition have some relationship to student engagement – their motivation and self-efficacy – and how different pedagogies and processes impact this and student outcomes and success. The authors of the nine papers represent institutions in Spain, Turkey, China, the UK, Ghana, South Africa, Sweden, Israel, Croatia and the USA.
One of the biggest challenges, both for students and institutions, with regard to student engagement, is absenteeism and its relationship to non-progression and failure to complete. The paper by Triado-Ivern et al., from the University of Barcelona, Spain (A factorial structure of university absenteeism in higher education: A student perspective), looks at this issue from a student perspective and explores whether or not the reasons for absenteeism have changed since the introduction of the EHEA curriculum model. Their findings, which offer additional insight compared to earlier studies, suggest there are differences between students of different ages and at different stages of study. However, they do not explore if the EHEA changes directly influenced this.
Ahmet Basal and Naime Elcan from Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, and Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey (Perceptions of pre-service English teachers towards the use of digital badges), explore the use of appropriately designed ‘achievement’ badges in Higher Education. We are all familiar with the concept of badging; the scouts and girl guides have used them for years and more recently digital natives expect to receive badges for their achievements online. However, their use in Higher Education is a relatively recent concept and this paper looks at their impact on student engagement both in class and on the virtual learning environment. They suggest their results demonstrate increased engagement and greater class coherence. Students felt that it gave them a different, more accessible form of rapid feedback. However, they were not keen on the idea of others seeing their own achievements. It suggests that whilst it may increase friendly rivalry, it may disincentivize weaker students. A second paper in this edition, that by Annelie J Harvey and Helen Keyes, from Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK (How do I compare thee? An evidence-based approach to the presentation of class comparison information to students using Dashboard), also looks at the impact of comparisions between students achievements but using a data dashboard. They found that students comparing themselves to a cohort that is generally performing better than them and who are more academically engaged has a detrimental effect on self-esteem. Interestingly, this did not translate into decreased levels of motivation as assessed on a perseverance task or by willingness to engage with study support services. They also showed that the effect on self-esteem affected students across all grade profiles equally.
The engagement of post-graduate students is explored in two papers in this edition. The first by Cross et al., Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK, and Ghana Health Service, Ghana (‘Feeling part of a network of learning in health promotion’: An evaluation of a postgraduate peer mentoring scheme in Ghana), focusses on informal structures of peer mentoring. Qualitative analysis of data derived from focus groups suggested that the mentoring process enculturated the students to postgraduate study and motivated them through enhanced self-efficacy. The second paper by Yao Zheng et al. from the University of Macau and Shandong University of Science and Technology, Qingdao, China (Exploring student engagement with supervisor feedback on master’s thesis: Insights from a case study), is a small case study of three Masters students in China and their engagement with feedback from their supervisors. The study identified three themes from their qualitative analysis: affective, behavioural and cognitive. Whilst students were re-assured by praise from their supervisors they did not necessarily act on the feedback given, suggesting that the nature of the feedback did not encourage or motivate them to do better. Indeed, some of the data suggest that the feedback was not clear or raised further questions.
By contrast to the above, the paper by Wangnan Cao, Jingyi Cai and Chun Chang from Peking University, China (Scale development for competencies among medical teachers on undergraduate education: A Delphi Study from a top Chinese university), explores the factors that affect student engagement from the perspective of the essential skills required by medical educators. Of interest to a wider international audience is the finding that their scale identified the need for dialogue with students; given the typically Western assumption that Chinese teaching is more didactic and teacher focussed rather than student-focussed. It also identified student engagement and motivation as essential factors. Also, interestingly, unlike similar studies elsewhere, it did not identify any need for socio-cultural competencies, which may reflect the lack of diversity in the medical student (and faculty) populations.
The remaining papers in this edition all deal with those skills essential to critical, creative, entrepreneurial thinkers. The debate over defining these characteristics still persists, but in general, in each instance, individuals require the skills to take a wider view of a problem or question and try to find an innovative solution. Certainly, critical thinking requires emotional intelligence which has been defined as ‘the ability to process information about one’s emotions and those of others in a sophisticated way and to use this information as a framework for thinking and behaviour management’. Sub-skills include self-awareness, self-regulation, social intelligence, empathy, self-motivation and reflection.
The remaining papers each look at aspects of self-regulation and motivation in relation to creative or entrepreneurial thinking. Liezel Frick and Eva M. Brodin from Stellenbosch University, South Africa, and Lund University, Sweden (A return to Wonderland: Exploring the links between academic identity development and creativity during doctoral education), describe a textual analysis of published work and draw the link between identity creation and creativity. Their findings link to an earlier paper in this edition where peer mentoring developed motivation and self-efficacy. The last three papers all look at creativity and entrepreneurship in relation to pedagogy. Yossi Maaravi from the Adelson School of Entrepreneurship, Herzliya, Israel (Using hackathons to teach management consulting), draws on the popularised approach to learning – the Hackathon – and identified that learning and motivation were significant elements for students in relation to their experience of the Hackathon.
In the paper by Pamela Watters & Jayson Spas from the University of Rhode Island, USA, and Rhode Island College, USA (Finding creativity in the extrinsically motivated environment of architecture students), they explored how extrinsic motivation (grades and awards) impacts the creativity of academic outputs from architecture students. They found that a schedule of formative assessment encouraged technical competency rather than creativity. They suggest that ‘high level’ formative assessments might encourage deeper learning, a prerequisite of creativity.
In the final paper by Ivan Stefanic, et al., from Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Croatia, Tera Tehnopolis Ltd., Osijek, Croatia; and North Carolina State University USA (Evaluation of a blended learning approach for cross-cultural entrepreneurial education), we are offered a case study relating to a programme delivered in both the USA and Croatia designed to encourage student collaboration across cultural/educational boundaries and to enhance entrepreneurship. The study discusses the challenges of studying in different time zones but did not find the different educational backgrounds to be a barrier to success. They showed strong student satisfaction and motivation (as measured by engagement) particularly where what they learned related to their future career expectations.