Differences between students are as important as average levels of student engagement, according to an international expert on student engagement.

When assessing the quality of education at their institution, Australian universities must not look solely at average results from student engagement surveys but also focus on the different experiences among students, Professor Alexander McCormick told the National Student Engagement Forum on July 7.

Professor McCormick, Director of the United States National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), delivered the keynote presentation at the forum co-hosted by La Trobe University and the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).

The forum focused on how information gathered from the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE) and its American equivalent can be used to improve the quality of higher education.

AUSSE, the largest survey of current higher education students in Australia and New Zealand, is a collaboration between ACER and participating universities. The 2009 AUSSE involved more than 30,000 students from 35 higher education institutions. A public report on the results was released by ACER in May. Over 50 institutions and 300,000 sampled students and teaching staff are participating in the 2010 collection, demonstrating Australia’s commitment to enhancing learning and outcomes.

According to McCormick, the information gathered by student engagement surveys such as AUSSE can be used by institutions to set standards and improve quality; however results are also commonly used to compare institutions to their peers.

McCormick expressed concern that that survey results can be over-simplified if the focus is just on comparing the average result of one institution to another.

“Most of what we know from our research is that there is far more variation within institutions that there is between institutions,” he said.

A US study of student engagement recently found that less than 10 per cent of the variation of results is attributable to the institution.

“ To focus solely on the differences between institutions is like just looking at the tip of the iceberg,”   McCormick said.

“The tendency to look at averages and mean scores implies that all students feel the same… however the student experience is highly variable within our institutions.”

To highlight the importance of examining the internal variation of survey responses, McCormick used results from the US student engagement survey to demonstrate that an institution with a high average rating could have a range of individual student results extending below the average rating of the lowest ranked institution.

With this in mind, McCormick encouraged institutions to focus on the least-engaged students.

He said that student engagement pays bigger dividends for under-represented groups and for under-prepared groups such as students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. US research suggests that, for these students, improved engagement levels result in better outcomes, including higher grade point averages.

This is all part of the challenge that McCormick identifies as the difference between ‘participation’ in a student engagement survey such as AUSSE and ‘use’ of the results.

“Gathering information is the first and easiest step in using a student engagement survey to improve the quality of higher education,” he said.

McCormick recommended that institutions extend survey results with targeted inquiry, using focus groups and staff surveys. Strategies to unite interest and focus attention are also important in the quest to improve the quality of higher education.

 “Student engagement isn’t just like a light switch,” McCormick said.  “It’s not something that an institution can simply turn on then adjust the dimmer.”

McCormick said there are several dimensions and factors to the idea of engagement. Student engagement requires involvement with teaching staff. Rather than just memorising and regurgitating facts, there must be challenging academic work that encourages the development of higher-order thinking skills. There must also be active and collaborative learning practices such as learning communities, as well as powerful educational experiences such as study abroad programs.

For McCormick, engagement is the intersection of decisions made by institutions, staff and students. Engagement reflects choices made by institutions and teaching staff such as priorities, incentives, activities, requirements and structures. It also reflects student choices because ultimately, students have to make the decision to invest their time and effort into their studies.

According to McCormick, the time and energy students devote to their studies is the best predictor of their development.

In the United States, where the student engagement survey has been in place since 2000, a new study led by McCormick suggests emerging trends of improved survey results across a range of higher education institution types.

The early findings suggest that strong top-tier leadership, committed staff leadership and involvement, and institution-wide commitment to quality were linked to improved student engagement.

McCormick will next head a grant-funded study to expand analysis of the trends identified in their pilot study.

For more information on the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE), visit http://ausse.acer.edu.au

A version of this article was published in Campus Review on 19 July 2010 and can be read at http://www.campusreview.com.au/

« Back to eNews