Enhancing Student Engagement in a Sustainability …
331
develop, while also allowing generalization and comparison of perceptions between
the two consecutive years.
Since the level of student engagement and survey context are often issue-,
methodology-, space- and time specific, the pre- and post-tests are not strictly
experimental. Students present in the class of 2017 were invited to complete two
questionnaire-based surveys. These surveys were taken in the first week (week 1)
and the last week of the tuition period (week 18) respectively and each took about
15 min to complete. The students were informed that honest and straightforward
responses would be preferred, and that individual responses would be kept confidential and not be used in any other way. Through collecting the information about
students’ interests, perceptions of the course, cognitive skills and engagement performance, this study intends to identify possible gaps in the existing knowledge about
engagement in sustainability teaching and learning and subsequently suggests some
solutions.
In this case, the first survey, conducted in September 2017 with a valid response
rate of 86% (76 of 84 students), consists of the same questions as for the previous
class in 2016. The second survey conducted a few months later in December 2017,
with a response rate of 95.2% (80 of 84 students) captures students’ opinions of
participation, classroom engagement and suggestions for the course. The second
survey is adapted from a sample CLASSE survey to measure student involvement
in the class (Gurung and Schwartz 2013), with all choice items focusing on selfreporting evaluations of engagement activities, cognitive skills and class atmosphere.
There are some open-ended questions, to which students can respond with their own
ideas, comments or suggestions.
4.3 Results
Although the class in 2017 had fewer students compared with the previous class
in 2016, does the smaller sample restrict our ability to generalize? Do they share a
similar learning experience and interests in sustainability course learning? What new
findings can be obtained from the more recent surveys? The first survey indicated
no significant difference between the classes conducted in 2016 and 2017 in terms
of prior engagement of students with sustainability. In 2016, 83.4% of the students
indicated that they have not taken a sustainability course before college, whereas in
2017 this was the case for 85.5% of the students.
Students were asked to assign a number from 1 (no knowledge at all) to 5 (full
understanding) to indicate their existing knowledge about key historical events associated with sustainable development. Five iconic events were selected: 1972 Stockholm Conference; Brundtland’s SD definition; Rio Summit and Agenda 21; adoption
of the MDGs in 2000; adoption of the SDGs in 2015. Figure 2 shows the comparative
percentage results for the two classes. It is fair to say that the students from the 2016
class and the 2017 class are not significantly different. With an item on the Kyoto
331
develop, while also allowing generalization and comparison of perceptions between
the two consecutive years.
Since the level of student engagement and survey context are often issue-,
methodology-, space- and time specific, the pre- and post-tests are not strictly
experimental. Students present in the class of 2017 were invited to complete two
questionnaire-based surveys. These surveys were taken in the first week (week 1)
and the last week of the tuition period (week 18) respectively and each took about
15 min to complete. The students were informed that honest and straightforward
responses would be preferred, and that individual responses would be kept confidential and not be used in any other way. Through collecting the information about
students’ interests, perceptions of the course, cognitive skills and engagement performance, this study intends to identify possible gaps in the existing knowledge about
engagement in sustainability teaching and learning and subsequently suggests some
solutions.
In this case, the first survey, conducted in September 2017 with a valid response
rate of 86% (76 of 84 students), consists of the same questions as for the previous
class in 2016. The second survey conducted a few months later in December 2017,
with a response rate of 95.2% (80 of 84 students) captures students’ opinions of
participation, classroom engagement and suggestions for the course. The second
survey is adapted from a sample CLASSE survey to measure student involvement
in the class (Gurung and Schwartz 2013), with all choice items focusing on selfreporting evaluations of engagement activities, cognitive skills and class atmosphere.
There are some open-ended questions, to which students can respond with their own
ideas, comments or suggestions.
4.3 Results
Although the class in 2017 had fewer students compared with the previous class
in 2016, does the smaller sample restrict our ability to generalize? Do they share a
similar learning experience and interests in sustainability course learning? What new
findings can be obtained from the more recent surveys? The first survey indicated
no significant difference between the classes conducted in 2016 and 2017 in terms
of prior engagement of students with sustainability. In 2016, 83.4% of the students
indicated that they have not taken a sustainability course before college, whereas in
2017 this was the case for 85.5% of the students.
Students were asked to assign a number from 1 (no knowledge at all) to 5 (full
understanding) to indicate their existing knowledge about key historical events associated with sustainable development. Five iconic events were selected: 1972 Stockholm Conference; Brundtland’s SD definition; Rio Summit and Agenda 21; adoption
of the MDGs in 2000; adoption of the SDGs in 2015. Figure 2 shows the comparative
percentage results for the two classes. It is fair to say that the students from the 2016
class and the 2017 class are not significantly different. With an item on the Kyoto