Enhancing Student Engagement in a Sustainability …
325
According to Trowler (2010, p. 5), “acting without feeling engaged is just involvement or even compliance; feeling engaged without acting is dissociation.”
Increasing engagement is taken as an essential part of optimizing learning outcomes (Kuh et al. 2005; Gurung and Schwartz 2013). Unlike other types of metrics
that focus more on student selectivity and faculty credentials, student engagement
provides an alternative metric for measuring learning experiences and success in
education. It is positively related to persistence and academic performance (e.g.,
Gurung and Schwartz 2013; Gettinger and Ball 2007). Besides, as an opposite term
to alienation, engagement represents qualities of attachment, inclusion, integration
or empowerment in relation to people, work or the physical environment, thus “the
promotion of student engagement should bring benefits to quality of life that are more
fundamental than increases in school achievement” (Newmann et al. 1992, p. 28).
Focusing on engagement at a school level, Fredricks et al. (2004) define student engagement as a meta-construct that includes three dimensions: (1) behavioral
engagement, in which students typically comply with behavioral norms, such as
attendance and involvement and would restrain from disruptive behavior; (2) emotional engagement, in which students would emotionally experience affective reactions such as interest, enjoyment or a sense of belonging; (3) cognitive engagement,
where students would be investing in their learning, seek to go beyond the requirements and relish challenge. Schlechty (2002) defines five levels of student engagement: authentic engagement, ritual compliance, passive compliance, retreatism and
rebellion.
Research has shown that the social-cultural orientations are the most important
factors affecting student engagement. Changing students’ experiences within the
school can enhance their engagement. Drawing findings from psychology, sociology
and education, Newmann et al. (1992, p. 17) frame a model that captures three broad
driving factors of student engagement: students’ underlying need for competence, the
extent to which students experience membership in the school and the authenticity
of the work they are asked to complete.
Researchers use a variety of methods to assess student engagement, including
self-reporting surveys, teacher ratings, interviews, direct observations and focused
case studies, each with strengths and limitations. Results vary depending on how
engagement is defined and measured (Fredricks and McColskey 2012). The National
Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), a survey mechanism most popularly used by
universities in Canada and the USA, provides a useful instrument to measure college
student engagement. Five domains are included in the NSSE: supportive learning
environment, enriching educational experiences, student-faculty interaction, level
of academic challenge and active and collaborative learning (Gurung and Schwartz
2013). Based on the NSSE and used by faculty to measure student involvement in a
particular class, Ouimet and Smallwood (2005) developed the Class-Level Survey of
Student Engagement (CLASSE). The student CLASSE requires students to reflect
on their behavior both inside and outside the class, whereas the faculty CLASSE is
used to compare faculty expectations with students’ experience during the class.
325
According to Trowler (2010, p. 5), “acting without feeling engaged is just involvement or even compliance; feeling engaged without acting is dissociation.”
Increasing engagement is taken as an essential part of optimizing learning outcomes (Kuh et al. 2005; Gurung and Schwartz 2013). Unlike other types of metrics
that focus more on student selectivity and faculty credentials, student engagement
provides an alternative metric for measuring learning experiences and success in
education. It is positively related to persistence and academic performance (e.g.,
Gurung and Schwartz 2013; Gettinger and Ball 2007). Besides, as an opposite term
to alienation, engagement represents qualities of attachment, inclusion, integration
or empowerment in relation to people, work or the physical environment, thus “the
promotion of student engagement should bring benefits to quality of life that are more
fundamental than increases in school achievement” (Newmann et al. 1992, p. 28).
Focusing on engagement at a school level, Fredricks et al. (2004) define student engagement as a meta-construct that includes three dimensions: (1) behavioral
engagement, in which students typically comply with behavioral norms, such as
attendance and involvement and would restrain from disruptive behavior; (2) emotional engagement, in which students would emotionally experience affective reactions such as interest, enjoyment or a sense of belonging; (3) cognitive engagement,
where students would be investing in their learning, seek to go beyond the requirements and relish challenge. Schlechty (2002) defines five levels of student engagement: authentic engagement, ritual compliance, passive compliance, retreatism and
rebellion.
Research has shown that the social-cultural orientations are the most important
factors affecting student engagement. Changing students’ experiences within the
school can enhance their engagement. Drawing findings from psychology, sociology
and education, Newmann et al. (1992, p. 17) frame a model that captures three broad
driving factors of student engagement: students’ underlying need for competence, the
extent to which students experience membership in the school and the authenticity
of the work they are asked to complete.
Researchers use a variety of methods to assess student engagement, including
self-reporting surveys, teacher ratings, interviews, direct observations and focused
case studies, each with strengths and limitations. Results vary depending on how
engagement is defined and measured (Fredricks and McColskey 2012). The National
Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), a survey mechanism most popularly used by
universities in Canada and the USA, provides a useful instrument to measure college
student engagement. Five domains are included in the NSSE: supportive learning
environment, enriching educational experiences, student-faculty interaction, level
of academic challenge and active and collaborative learning (Gurung and Schwartz
2013). Based on the NSSE and used by faculty to measure student involvement in a
particular class, Ouimet and Smallwood (2005) developed the Class-Level Survey of
Student Engagement (CLASSE). The student CLASSE requires students to reflect
on their behavior both inside and outside the class, whereas the faculty CLASSE is
used to compare faculty expectations with students’ experience during the class.