Staff Experiences Regarding Student Engagement in Active Learning and Social Environments in New Generation Universities

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


The quest for improved student engagement in active learning and social environments in new generation universities surpasses all prior teaching and learning commitments of educational institutions. While educators are expected to undertake effective steps towards realizing this engagement, it is also incumbent upon students themselves to partake in active learning processes. In tandem with the above, this study was done to establish views of academic staff at the Public University in Ankara, Turkey, regarding the practices of students 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. In the findings, dimensions like making students’ learning meaningful as well as promoting mastery learning orientations were found to be highly successful, while fostering a sense of competence and autonomy as well as establishing positive educator-student relationships was found to be moderately successful. Embracing collaborative learning, meanwhile, was found to be at a low level of success. Equally, some statistical differences were found in academic staff’s demographic variable of academic qualification in the dimensions of making students’ learning meaningful as well as promoting mastery learning orientations. However, no statistically significant result was obtained in the gender and professional experience variables.


Student engagement Active learning Social environment New Generation universities Globalization Paradigm shifts 


  1. Ahlfeldt, S., Mehta, S., & Sellnow, T. (2005). Measurement and analysis of student engagement in university classes where varying levels of PBL methods of instruction are in use. Higher Education Reserach & Development, 24(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashwin, P., & McVitty, D. (2015). The meanings of student engagement: Implications for policies and practices. In A. Curaj et al. (Eds.), The European higher education area (pp. 343–359., ch 23). London: Springer International Publishing. 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. Ernst and Young.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. Chism, G. (2006). Fall is a time for change. Journal of Food Science Education, 5, 59. Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Connelly, F., & Micheal, P. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. Education resources information centre. ED 295928.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Edutopia. (2012). How do we know when students are engaged?.
  11. Edutopia. (2014). Golden rules for engaging students in active learning activities.
  12. Erçetin, Ş. Ş. (2000). Lider sarmalında vizyon. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım Şirketi.Google Scholar
  13. 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). USA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldman, R. (1992). Reading ads socially. UK: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  15. 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, Columbary, Greece.Google Scholar
  16. Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning: A definition. ALT-J, 3(2), 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching and learning in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. Philadelphia: Open university press.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Lippman, P. C. (2010). Can the physical environment have an impact on the learning environment? OECD 2010. ISSN 2072-7925.Google Scholar
  20. Marginson, S. (2011). Higher education and public good. Higher Education Quarterly, 65, 411–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCormick, A. (2012). NSSE National Survey of Student Engagement. Indiana University: National Survey of Student Engagement. Retrieved from
  22. 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
  23. Partnerships for 21st Century Skills. (2002). 21st century learning environments.
  24. 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
  25. Selingo, J. (2013). The next generation university. Education policy program. Washington D.C: New America Foundation.Google Scholar
  26. Silverman, S., & Subramanian, P. R. (1999). Student attitude toward physical education and physical activity. Review of measurement issues & outcomes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 19(11), 97–125.Google Scholar
  27. Steinberg, A., & Almeida, C. (2004). From the margins to the mainstream: Effective learning environments for urban youth. Boston: Jobs for the Future.Google Scholar
  28. Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. N. (2007). Curriculum development: Theory into practice (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Taylor, L., & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education, 14(1).Google Scholar
  30. The Glossary of education reform for journalists, parents and community leaders. 2016.Google Scholar
  31. The University of Sheffield: Principles of student engagement.Google Scholar
  32. The University of Washington: Centre for teaching and learning.Google Scholar
  33. Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy. Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  34. Veen, W., & van Staalduinen, J. P. (2010). Chapter 24. 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 (pp. 323–338). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations