Skip to main content

Small Development Projects 2011 - Lancaster University - Leadership practice for student engagement in challenging conditions - Original Proposal

SDP Leaders

Professor Paul Trowler, Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University

Vicki Trowler, Senior Research Associate, Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University

Project’s administrative home

Lancaster University

Aims

This project runs from 1 March 2011 to 31 August 2011. It consolidates and extends the findings of our recent (summer 2010) HEA-funded project on student engagement (SE). We will test, further develop, refine and disseminate to higher education leaders the nascent leadership model indicated by our conclusions. This will assist leaders to employ practices which enhance SE in higher education institutions.

Our first project delivered a 20 thousand word literature review on SE, summarised any robust evidence available, offered case studies and built an interactive website (using Sakai) for discussion and dissemination of our deliverables. Though not the primary focus, two brief ‘Frameworks for Action’ were offered to policy-makers and change agents. The PI and researcher gave keynotes and workshops at three HEA/NUS conferences.

This new research focuses on developing conceptual and practical tools for leaders, building on that work. At this critical time for UK higher education, institutional leaders as well as the NUS (which partnered the HEA in the project of which our previous research formed a part) wish to facilitate engagement of progressive kinds within their HEIs: engagement which fosters student learning, improves retention and enhances institutional branding.

Objectives

  • To interrogate the robustness of our 'Frameworks for Action' for leaders and policy makers against documentary and empirical evidence, strengthening them and developing them.
  • To provide to leaders a brief, accessible, guide to the three key dimensions of student engagement we have identified, and the evidence about them.
  • To draw together evidence related to leadership practices specifically from our recent Student Engagement literature review, and any newer literature published and projects developed on this topic.
  • To collect primary data through interviews and other sources with a view to distilling 'Critical Success Factors' and lessons learned about SE policy and its implementation for higher education leaders.
  • To create practical resources for higher education leaders seeking to promote SE.
  • To disseminate in an engaged way the project outputs as outlined below.

Context and motivation

Following the Comprehensive Spending Review, the Browne report and in a depressed economic climate, the higher education environment is challenging and turbulent. With the proposed increases in student fees and the attendant accelerated marketisation of higher education, the currency and relevance of student engagement in higher education is accelerating. Evolving from earlier work on “student involvement” (Astin, 1984), “quality of effort” (Pace 1980, 1984) and “”time-on-task” (Merwin1969), student engagement has been shown through decades of findings to improve desirable outcomes in a range of pertinent areas. Whether an institution’s primary concern is economic (student persistence and “throughput” – Astin 1975, 1984, 1993; Bean 2005; Berger & Milem 1999; Braxton, Milem & Sullivan 2000; Bridges, Cambridge, Kuh & Leegwater 2005; Milem & Berger 1997; Pascarella & Terenzini 2005; Peltier, Laden & Matranga 1999: Pike et al. 1997; Stage & Hossler 2000; Swail, Redd & Perna 2003; Tinto 1993, 2000, 2005), marketing (student satisfaction – Kuh & Vesper 1997; Kuh et al. 2005; Kuh et al. 2007) or widening participation (social justice – Carini, Kuh & Klein 2006; Cruce, Wolniak Seifert & Pascarella 2006; Kuh 2009 (b); Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie & Gonyea 2008; NSSE 2007; Pascarella & Terenzini 2005) or a drive to improve the teaching and learning experience (Anaya 1996; Astin 1993; Baxter Magolda 1992; Endo & Harpel 1982; Gellin 2003; Kuh 1993, 1995, 2003; Kuh, Hu & Vesper 1997; Pascarella, Duby, Terenzini & Iverson 1983; Pascarella et al. 1996; Pascarella, Seifert & Blaich 2009; Pascarella & Terenzini 2005; Pike 1999, 2000; Pike & Killian 2001; Pike, Kuh & Gonyea 2003; Shulman 2002; Terenzini, Pascarella & Blimling 1996), a large body of evidence supports claims that SE improves such outcomes.

Understandings of the term 'student engagement' vary widely. Our working definition (Trowler 2010), abstracted from a range of literature, is:

Student engagement is concerned with the interaction between the time, effort and other relevant resources invested by both students and their institutions intended to optimise the student experience and enhance the learning outcomes and development of students and the performance, and reputation of the institution.

The conceptualisation of student engagement we have distilled from the literature involves three key foci, which can be represented by way of a three-dimensional graph with each focus being represented along one axis.

The lead researcher Professor Paul Trowler is uniquely qualified to head this research. He is well known for his work on leadership and change in higher education (see www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/trowler/cv.htm), including the Open University Press book Departmental Leadership in Higher Education (2001). Vicki Trowler’s research experience on the HEA Student Engagement project has provided her with the conceptual GPS to navigate this complex terrain. She has herself held student, staff, and institutional leadership roles in challenging conditions, and is thus familiar with the range of issues and perspectives facing leaders in higher education. (see vickitrowler.weebly.com)

Proposed methodology

  • Survey of very recent literature, case studies and projects on student engagement;
  • Assembling and synthesis of findings from other student engagement projects, including those of the HEA and the NUS as they relate to leadership practices;
  • Selection of three case studies, one from each of the three axes outlined above.
  • Interviews with leaders involved in these case studies – institutional leaders, student leaders, and operational or staff leaders; testing tools developed with them. (approximately 12 interviews)
  • Consolidation of findings into a model of successful leadership practices which is situationally contingent;
  • Augmenting and promoting to leaders the already-existing online, interactive Sakai resource on student engagement (located at https://sakai.lancs.ac.uk/portal/ : login username: sakai.guest@gmail.com, password: welcome). Promoting discussion of leadership experiences regarding SE initiatives.

Intended outcomes and outputs

The project will provide 6 short-term products and longer term legacies:

  • A conceptual overview of SE which is short and accessible
  • A synthesis of findings on effective leadership practices from recent literature and our new data, to include an itemisation of Critical Success Factors;
  • A SE Resource Kit for Leaders, rooted in robust evidence, to assist leaders acting as change agents directed at one or more axis of SE (6 pages max)
  • An interactive online resource with new features for higher education leaders containing references, a literature review, evidence summary, case studies, Frameworks for Action, synchronous chat room, asynchronous discussion forums, online conferencing facility, blogs, polls and other features;
  • A final project report to the Leadership Foundation.
  • Publications and presentations (detailed below) for dissemination, post-project;

Benefits to project partners and the wider higher education community

This work will:

  • Generate of a short, accessible overview of student engagement which will help communication on the issue, generating a shared set of understandings for leaders of what is meant by the term from a range of different understandings that already exist;
  • Provide a useful overview of effective leadership strategies and innovations to inform practice in higher education institutions wishing to improve engagement of, for, and by students;
  • Give tools to leaders as SE change agents which will improve their practice;
  • Further develop an already well-used dynamic interactive online resource to support an emerging engagement community and offer information and tools to leaders;
  • Publish its findings in The Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management and Engage to disseminate and boost the visibility of UK research into SE;
  • Inject a UK perspective into the largely US and Australasian-dominated body of literature by the inclusion of the UK context (which is very active in the SE area but does not label it as such, unlike New World authors).
  • Be of benefit to the Leadership Foundation, the HEA, the AUA and the NUS who are all concerned to improve the student experience.

Milestones

Deliverables (end of month)

1 March 2011

Project begins.

  • Review of recent literature, case studies and projects on SE to augment our HEA published one. Leadership issues then extracted from them.
  • 3 case study institutions formally agree data collection. Ethical procedures locally done. Consultation group convened.
  • Creation of dedicated Twitter stream
  • Updated literature review uploaded to SAKAI site
  • First draft of conceptual overview

April 2011 - June 2011

Data collection and analysis

  • First draft of synthesis of findings for leaders
  • First draft of SE Resource Kit for leaders
  • Further updating of SAKAI site

July 2011 - August 2011

Data analysis continues

Finalisation of deliverables Final versions delivered:

  • Conceptual overview
  • Synthesis of findings
  • SE Resource Kit
  • Final project report
  • Promotion of SAKAI site

Post-project conference and workshop papers prepared.



Articles written.

  • Delivery of papers
  • Publication of articles in Engage and the Journal of Higher Education Publication and Management.

Plans for dissemination

The project will be disseminated through the following routes:

  • Publication of outputs listed above
  • An article in Engage
  • An article in the Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
  • 2 presentations at relevant academic conferences, seminars and symposia;
  • Engagement with the leadership community through the Sakai interactive web site
  • Project outputs promoted via a dedicated Twitter stream (account: lead4Ngagement), with links to the Sakai site.

A consultation group will be established for the project. They will offer advice and will assist in testing and refining outputs. The following individuals/organisations have already expressed their interest in this: Alison Robinson, Executive Director of the AUA; The NUS’ Student Engagement Officer (or sub); Professor Amanda Chetwynd, PVC, Lancaster University. Two or three others will supplement this group, most likely from the case study institutions.

References

  • Anaya, G. 1999, "College Impact on Student Learning: Comparing the Use of Self-Reported Gains, Standardized Test Scores and College Grades.", Research in Higher Education, vol. 40, pp. 499-527.
  • Astin, A.W. 1993, What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
  • Astin, A.W. 1984, "Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.", Journal of College Student Development, vol. 25, pp. 297-308.
  • Astin, A.W. 1975, Preventing Students From Dropping Out. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
  • Baxter Magolda, M.B. 1992, "Cocurricular Influences on College Students' Intellectual Development.", Journal of College Student Development, vol. 33, pp. 203-213.
  • Bean, J.P. 2005, "Nine Themes of College Student Retention." in College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success, ed. A. Seidman, ACE & Praeger, Washington DC, pp. 215-244.
  • Berger, J.B. & Milem, J.F. 1999, "The role of student involvement and perceptions of integration in a causal model of student persistence", Research in Higher Education, vol. 40, pp. 641-664.
  • Braxton, J.M., Milem, J.F. & Sullivan, A.S. 2000, "The Influence of Active Learning on the College Student Departure Process: Towards a Revision of Tinto's Theory.", Journal of Higher Education, vol. 71, pp. 569-590.
  • Bridges, B.K., Cambridge, B., Kuh, G.D. & Leegwater, L.H. 2005, "Student Engagement at Minority Serving Institutions: Emerging Lessons from the BEAMS Project." in What Works: Achieving Success in Minority Retention. New Directions for Institutional Research., ed. G.H. Gaither, 125th edn, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 25-43.
  • Carini, R.M., Kuh, G.D. & Klein, S.P. 2006, "Student Engagement and Student Learning: Testing the Linkages", Research in Higher Education, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 1-24.
  • Cruce, T., Wolniak, G.C., Seifert, T.A. & Pascarella, E.T. 2006, "Impacts of Good Practices on Cognitive Development, Learning Orientations, and Graduate Degree Plans during the First Year of College.", Journal of College Student Development, vol. 47, pp. 365-383.
  • Endo, J.J. & Harpel, R.L. 1982, "The Effect of Student-Faculty Interaction on Students' Educational Outcomes.", Research in Higher Education, vol. 16, pp. 115-137.
  • Gellin, A. 2003, "The Effect of Undergraduate Student Involvement on Critical Thinking: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature, 1991-2000", Journal of College Student Development, vol. 44, pp. 746-762.
  • Kuh, G.D. 2009, "Afterword" in Student Engagement in Higher Education, eds. S.R. Harper & S.J. Quaye, Routledge, New York & Oxon, pp. 313-318.
  • Kuh, G.D. 2003, "What We're Learning about Student Engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for Effective Educational Practices.", Change, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 24-32.
  • Kuh, G.D. 1995, "The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student learning and personal development.", Journal of Higher Education, vol. 66, pp. 123-155.
  • Kuh, G.D. 1993, "In their Own Words: What Students Learn Outside the Classroom.", American Educational Research Journal, vol. 30, pp. 277-304.
  • Kuh, G.D., Cruce, T.M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J. & Gonyea, R.M. 2008, "Unmasking the Effects of Student Engagement on First-Year College Grades and Persistence.", Journal of Higher Education, vol. 79, no. 5, pp. 540-563; pp. 24.
  • Kuh, G.D., Hu, S. & Vesper, N. 2000, ""They Shall Be Known By What They Do": An Activities-Based Typology of College Students.", Journal of College Student Development, vol. 41, pp. 228-244.
  • Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J.A., Bridges, B.K. & Hayek, J.C. 2007, "Piecing together the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations", ASHE Higher Education Report, vol. 32, no. 5.
  • Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J.H. & Whitt, E.J. 2005, "Never Let It Rest: Lessons about Student Success from High-Performing Colleges and Universities.", Change The Magazine of Higher Learning, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 44-pp. 8.
  • Kuh, G.D. & Vesper, N. 1997, "A comparison of student experiences with good practices in undergraduate education between 1990 and 1994", Review of Higher Educaion, vol. 21, pp. 43-61.
  • Merwin, J.C. 1969, "Historical View of Changing Concepts of Evaluation" in Educational Evaluation: New Roles, New Methods., ed. R.L. Tyler, 68th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II edn, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  • Milem, J.F. & Berger, J.B. 1997, "A Modified Model of College Student Persistence: Exploring the Relationship between Astin's Theory of Involvement and Tinto's Theory of Student Departure.", Journal of College Student Development, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 387-400.
  • National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) 2007, Experiences that Matter: Enhancing Student Learning and Success., Indiana Center for Postsecondary Research, Bloomington.
  • Pace, C.R. 1984, Measuring the Quality of College Student Experiences. An Account of the Development and Use of the College Student Experience Questionnaire, Higher Education Research Institute, Los Angeles.
  • Pace, C.R. 1980, "Measuring the Quality of Student Effort.", Current Issues in Higher Education, vol. 2, pp. 10-16.
  • Pascarella, E.T., Duby, P.D., Terenzini, P.T. & Iverson, B.K. 1983, "Student-Faculty Relationships and Freshman Year Intellectual Growth in an Nonresidential Setting.", Journal of College Student Development, vol. 24, pp. 395-402.
  • Pascarella, E.T., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L.S. & Terenzini, P.T. 1996, "Influence of Students' Openness to Diversity and Challenge in the First Year of College", Journal of Higher Education, vol. 67, pp. 174-195.
  • Pascarella, E.T., Seifert, T.A. & Blaich, C. 2010, "How Effective Are the NSSE Benchmarks in Predicting Important Educational Outcomes?", Change The Magazine of Higher Learning, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 16-22; pp. 7.
  • Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. 2005, How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research (Vol. 2), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
  • Peltier, G.L., Laden, R. & Matranga, M. 1999, "Student Persistence in College: A Review of Research", Journal of College Student Retention, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 357-375.
  • Pike, G.R. 2000, "The Influence of Fraternity or Sorority Membership on Students' College Experiences and Cognitive Development", Research in Higher Education, vol. 41, pp. 117-139.
  • Pike, G.R. 1999, "The Effects of Residential Learning Communities and Traditional Residential Living Arrangements on Educational Gains during the First Year of College.", Journal of College Student Development, vol. 40, pp. 269-284.
  • Pike, G.R. & Killian, T.S. 2001, "Reported Gains in Student Learning Do Academic Disciplines Make a Difference?", Research in Higher Education, vol. 42, pp. 429-454.
  • Pike, G.R., Kuh, G.D. & Gonyea, R.M. 2003, "The Relationship Between Institutional Mission and Students' Involvement and Educational Outcomes.", Research in Higher Education, vol. 44, pp. 243-263.
  • Pike, G.D., Schroeder, C.C. & Berry, T.R. 1997, "Enhancing the Educational Impact of Residence Halls: The Relationship between Residential Learning Communities and First Year College Experiences and Persistence.", Journal of College Student Development, vol. 38, pp. 609-621.
  • Shulman, L.S. 2002, "Making Differences: A Table of Learning.", Change, vol. 34, pp. 24-32.
  • Stage, F.K. & Hossler, D. 2000, "Where is the Student? Linking Student Behaviours, College Choice, and College Persistence." in Reworking the Student Departure Puzzle, ed. J.M. Braxton, Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville Tennessee, pp. 170-195.
  • Swail, W.S., Redd, K.E. & Perna, L.W. 2003, Retaining Minority Students in Higher Education A Framework for Success, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report (Vol 30 No ) edn, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
  • Terenzini, P.T., Pascarella, E.T. & Blimling, G.S. 1996, "Students' Out-of-Class Experiences and Their Influence on Learning and Cognitive Development: A Literature Review.", Journal of College Student Development, vol. 37, pp. 149-162.
  • Tinto, V. 2005, "Moving from Theory to Action." in College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success, ed. A. Seidman, ACE & Praeger, Washington DC, pp. 317-333.
  • Tinto, V. 2000, "Taking Retention Seriously: Rethinking the First Year of College.", NACADA Journal, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 5-10.
  • Tinto, V. 1993, Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, 2nd edn, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  • Trowler, V. 2010, Student Engagement Literature Review, Higher Education Academy, York.

Foci of Engagement:

Axis 1: Individual Student Learning

This axis represents a continuum along which individual works can be located according to their concern, or perspective, on the individual student learning dimension of student engagement. The overwhelming majority of literature surveyed was expressly concerned with this focus. Along this axis, a paper which had no patent concern with individual student learning would be located at 0, with way points along this axis including the following:

  • Student attention in learning
  • Student interest in learning
  • Student involvement in learning
  • Student (active) participation in learning
  • "Student-centredness"- student involvement in the design, delivery and assessment of their learning

Axis 2: Structure and Process

The second axis focuses on issues of structure and process, including student representation, students’ role within governance, student feedback processes, and other such matters. Location along this axis at the 0 point would denote that the work had no patent concern with the collective structural or processal role of student engagement, while way points along this axis would include

"Representation as consultation", such as tokenistic student membership of committees or panels to obviate the need for formal consultation with students

  • Students in an observer role on committees
  • Students as representatives on committees ('delegate' role)
  • Students as full members of committees ('trustee' role)
  • Integrated and articulated student representation at course, department, faculty, SRC/SU or NUS level – not ad hoc or piecemeal

Axis 3: Identity

The third axis focuses on issues of identity. This can range from concerns about how to generate a sense of belonging for individual students, to concerns about how to engage specific groups of students – particularly those deemed “marginal” – with midpoints including issues concerning the role of representation in conferring identity. Examples of way points along this axis include:

  • Engagement towards individual student 'belonging'
  • Identity attached to representation (module/course/discipline/institution/'student' role)
  • Engagement of groups, such as "non-traditional" students.

This project examines each of these foci, considers their implications for leadership practices of each of them and develops conceptual and practical tools for leaders as student engagement-oriented change agents.