Student Engagement in Active Learning and Social Environments in New Generation Universities: Experiences of Students

  • Şefika Şule Erçetin
  • Şuay Nilhan Açıkalın
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)

Abstract

The rise of globalization has brought an unprecedented wave of change whose major effect has been witnessed in a number of paradigm shifts within the education system. Such shifts have meant that the old educational institutions are no longer considered viable in regard to causing transformation of the education system. Consequent to this, the universities have taken on a new dimension in the shape of new generation universities. These universities are characteristic of active learning and social environments that transform the students via the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains to inform a holistic development. Nevertheless, for such to be realized, academic staff in these new generation universities ought to partake in student engagement in the active learning and social environments by making and enabling the students to play a lead role during the teaching and learning process in order for them to control and be responsible for their own destiny. Issuing from the above premise, this study was done to establish views of undergraduate and postgraduate students at Hacettepe University in Ankara, Turkey, regarding the practices of academic staff geared towards realizing student engagement in active learning and social environments. This was done basing on five major dimensions: making student learning meaningful, fostering a sense of competence and autonomy, embracing collaborative learning, establishing positive educator-student relationships and promoting mastery learning orientations. Findings indicate that some dimensions were found to be highly successful like making students’ learning meaningful as well as promoting mastery learning orientations, while some were found to be moderately successful like fostering a sense of competence and autonomy as well as establishing positive educator-student relationships. One dimension, embracing collaborative learning, was found to be at a low level of success. Equally, some statistical differences were found in students’ demographic variables like gender, age and level of education in the dimensions of making students’ learning meaningful, fostering a sense of competence and autonomy, embracing collaborative learning as well as promoting mastery learning orientations.

Keywords

Student Engagement Active Learning Social Environment New Generation Universities Globalization Paradigm Shifts 

References

  1. Ahlfeldt, S., et al. (2005). Measurement and analysis of student engagement in university classes where varying levels of PBL methods of instruction are in use. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(1), 5–20., ISSN 0729–4360 (print) /ISSN 1469–8366 (online)/04/040005–16:.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436052000318541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashwin, P., & McVitty, D. (2015). Chapter 23: The meanings of student engagement: Implications for policies and practices. In A. Curaj et al. (Eds.), The European higher education area (pp. 343–359). London: Springer International Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0_23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bestor, A. E. (1990). Educational wastelands: The retreat from learning in our public schools. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bokor, J. (2012). University of the future: A thousand-year-old industry on the cusp of profound change. Austin: Ernst and Young. http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/University_of_the_future/$FILE/University_of_the_future_2012.pdf.Google Scholar
  5. Bonwell, C., & Eison, J. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1). Washington, DC: George Washington University.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, N., & Oke, E. F. (1990). Curriculum and instruction: An introduction to methods of teaching. London: Macmillan Education Ltd.Google Scholar
  7. Burns, M. (2011). Distance education for teacher training: Modes, models, and methods. Washington, DC: Education Development Center.Google Scholar
  8. Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of distance education on k–12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://www.ncrel.org/tech/distance/k12distance.pdf
  9. Chism, G. (2006). Fall is a time for change. Journal of Food Science Education, 5, 59.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-4329.2006.00013.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Connelly, F., & Micheal, P. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  12. Covey, R. (1998). The role of teachers and teacher educators in curriculum design. Education Resources Information Centre. ED 295924.Google Scholar
  13. Cox, A. M. (2011). Students’ experience of University space: An exploratory study. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(2), 197–207.Google Scholar
  14. Edutopia. (2012). How do we know when students are engaged? Google Scholar
  15. Edutopia. (2014). Golden rules for engaging students in active learning activities.Google Scholar
  16. Erçetin, Ş. Ş. (2000). Lider sarmalında vizyon. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım Şirketi.Google Scholar
  17. Erçetin, Ş. Ş., Açıkalın, Ş. N., & Bülbül, M. Ş. (2013). A multi-dimensional approach to leadership in chaotic environments. In S. Banerjee (Ed.), Chaos and complexity theory for management: Nonlinear dynamics (pp. 89–104). Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Facer, K. (2011). Learning futures: Education, technology and social change. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  19. Goldman, R. (1992). Reading ads socially. UK: Taylor&Francis.Google Scholar
  20. Goldman, S. R., Petrosino, A., Sherwood, R. D., Garrison, S., Hickey, D., Bransford, J. D., Pellegrino, J. W. (1992). Multimedia environments for enhancing science instruction. Paper presented at the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Psychological and Educational Foundations of Technology-Based Learning Environments, Kolymbari.Google Scholar
  21. Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning: A definition. Association for Learning Technology-Journal, 3(2), 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching and learning in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hellsten, M., & Prescott, A. (2004). Learning at university: The international student experience. International Education Journal, 5, 344–351.Google Scholar
  24. Higgins, S. (2005). The impact of school environments: A literature review. The Centre for Learning and Teaching, School of Education, Communication and Language Science: University of Newcastle: The Centre for Learning and Teaching School of Education, Communication and Language Science.Google Scholar
  25. Keegan, D. (1996). Foundations of distance education (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Lippman, P. C. (2010). Can the physical environment have an impact on the learning environment? OECD. ISSN 2072–7925 http://www.oecd.org/edu/innovation-education/centreforeffectivelearningenvironmentscele/46413458.pdf
  27. Marginson, S. (2011). Higher education and public good. Higher Education Quarterly, 65, 411–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCormick, A. (2012). NSSE national survey of student engagement. Indiana University: National Survey of Student Engagement. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/html/quick_facts.cfm
  29. Morgan, P. (2008). Teacher perceptions of physical education in the primary school: Attitudes, values and curriculum preferences. Journal of Physical Education, 65(1), 46–56.Google Scholar
  30. OECD. (2008, 8–9 December). Four future scenarios for higher education. Higher education to 2030: What futures for quality access in the Era of globalization? In OECD/France International Conference.Google Scholar
  31. Partnerships for 21st Century Skills. (2002). 21st century learning environments. http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/route21/
  32. Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). A typology of student engagement for American colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 185–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rotter, J. B. (1989). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A case history of a variable. American Psychologist, 45, 489–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Selingo, J. (2013). The next generation university. Education policy program. Washington D.C: New America Foundation.Google Scholar
  35. Silverman, S., & Subramanian, P. R. (1999). Student attitude toward physical education and physical activity. Review of measurement issues and outcomes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 19(11), 97–125.Google Scholar
  36. Smith, K. (2010). Research, policy and funding: Academic treadmills and the squeeze on intellectual spaces. British Journal of Sociology, 61, 176–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Steinberg, A., & Almeida, C. (2004). From the margins to the mainstream: Effective learning environments for urban youth. Boston: Jobs for the Future.Google Scholar
  38. Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. N. (2007). Curriculum development: theory into practice (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Taylor, L., & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education, 14(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
  40. Temple, P. (2014). Managing the student experience in a shifting higher education landscape. New York: The Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
  41. The Glossary of education reform for journalists, parents and community leaders. (2016). http://edglossary.org/
  42. The University of Sheffield: Principles of student engagement. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/als/students/1.521051
  43. The University of Washington: Centre for teaching and learning. http://www.washington.edu/teaching/
  44. Tight, M. (2012). Researching higher education (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill International.Google Scholar
  45. Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy/Department of Educational Research. UK: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  46. Veen, W., & van Staalduinen, J. P. (2010). The Homo Zappiens and its consequences for learning in universities. In U.-D. Ehlers & D. Schneckenberg (Eds.), Changing cultures in higher education moving ahead to future learning (Vol. 24, pp. 323–338). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wildavsky, B. (2010). The great brain race: How global universities are reshaping the world. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Şefika Şule Erçetin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Şuay Nilhan Açıkalın
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Hacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Lancaster UniversityLancasterUK
  3. 3.International Relations Department of Middle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations