Issue 2 | Article 8

Abstract
Achieving learners’ engagement is a challenging task. The challenge is especially daunting when lessons are delivered online. Devising mitigating strategies requires a clear understanding of the ground realities. An attempt has thus been made in this article to explore the issue of learners’ engagement. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the switch to online learning, international students in non-university settings appear to have been less engaged for various reasons, and some of those reasons seem easier to manage than others. To prevent the effectiveness and sustainability of academic programs from being unintended casualties of the move to online learning, complacency should not be an option.

Introduction
Engagement is the ‘sine qua non’ of effective learning. It sharpens learners’ attention, motivates them to apply higher-level critical thinking, and promotes meaningful learning experiences. The effectiveness and long-term sustainability of academic programs depend on real engagement - which is much more than a mere ‘checklist’ ticking exercise. Thus ‘engagement’ continues to attract the attention of academics, educational strategists, and policy makers.

Objectives and rationale
The importance of learner engagement in higher education is being increasingly recognised. But how to inspire learners best is still a matter of debate. At a time when face-to-face teaching has been completely sidelined in favour of virtual delivery, the issue of students’ engagement is more important than ever. Below, the author uses insights derived from a case study he conducted to explore this important issue in some detail. Aspects like what it really means to be engaged, what could be the reasons for engagement/disengagement, and what it takes to augment better engagement are all explored. Students, both current and prospective, will be the ultimate beneficiaries of this effort as it is primarily directed towards enhancing students’ overall learning experiences. Policy makers, academic administrators, researchers, and members of the teaching fraternity will also benefit from this ‘front-line’ version of the ground realities. This effort, however, should not be considered as a ‘cure-all’ remedy due to its limited scope.

Deciphering engagement/disengagement
Engagement provides value for all. It is "an important prerequisite for improving student achievement and student experience" and it can be considered "an indicator of institutional success" (Baron and Corbin, 2012, p.759). According to Bowen (2005, pp. 4-7) educational engagement can happen in four different ways: student engagement with the learning process i.e., active involvement.; with an object of study i.e., transformative in some way; with contexts of the subject of study i.e., multi-disciplinary or inter-disciplinary learning; and finally, with the human condition i.e., learning in civic and cultural contexts. Many researchers (Zhao et al., 2021, p.2) are of the opinion that students’ perceptions of the learning environment play a vital role in their ‘skill development’. Enhancement of academic achievement depends on the learning environment where students enjoy freedom, their skills development is promoted based on the curriculum and instruction, and enjoyable interpersonal relationships are nurtured (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Reeve, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2000).  A major US study (2017) highlighted ‘higher order learning (curriculum leaning) and effective teaching practices (delivery leaning)’ as being important engagement indicators.

International post-graduate students studying business courses with private partner providers (outreach campuses run by private partners under twinning arrangements with universities) have been found to be less engaged for various reasons (Uddin, 2015). Since the student cohorts at stand-alone private higher education providers are similar in almost all respects to those of students attending university outreach partner providers’ programs, the nature and extent of disengagement are unlikely to be substantially different for these students. Based on a case-study type, small-scale semi-purposive survey (Uddin, 2015) and students’ spontaneous feedback (Ng, 2021) received personally from time to time, coupled with a prolonged experience in dealing with international students, the author of this paper is well-placed to identify some of the reasons for students’ apparent disengagement. It is to be noted here that these reasons may not be applicable to all international students, nor to all study programs in all locations. The reasons are discussed under four headings:

Content leaning

• Outdated material
• Does not provoke challenge or creativity
• No flexibility in terms of choice of subjects/units

Delivery leaning

• Complacency
• Monotonous delivery - doesn’t ignite passion
• Ineffective interaction
• Cultural insensitivity and lack of empathy

Learner leaning

• Entitlement mentality - schools exist to provide diplomas and degrees
• Lack of intrinsic motivation - enrolling into programs out of necessity rather than desire
• Juggling irreconcilable demands
• Anchoring priorities somewhere other than in the study program

Context leaning

• Wider gap between students’ expectations and ground realities re physical facilities and resources (library, sports, clubs etc.)
• Volatility of income
• Bleak prospects regarding qualifying for Australian residency
• Slim chances of embarking on a professional career

A quick browse through the above-mentioned reasons will force even a casual observer to the conclusion that ‘engagement’ is a multi-party and multifaceted phenomenon, and that no one person could possibly do all the heavy lifting to facilitate it. The ‘content’ and the ‘delivery’ leaning issues appear to be more manageable than the issues relating to the ‘learner’ and the learning ‘context’.

The way forward
Engaged teaching (Karasik, 2012 p.121) has been compared with 'salesmanship - you have to get the buyer’s attention before you can make a sale'. Karasik (2012, pp.121-128) proposed some simple rules in this regard, including ‘knowing the audience, being really there, making it personal in a professional way, treating them as individuals, using humour and keeping current and relevant’. Some authors view student engagement as a ‘shared responsibility" (Zepke, Leach & Butler, 2014 p.395). Some believe (Cook-Sather & Luz, 2015) that a re-defined learners’ role (where faculty and learners have some sort of partnership) might be the way forward.

Learner engagement is better when learners are provided with control over the content, the sequence, and the pace of delivery; and when learners can practice the content and receive feedback. These features are likely to enhance the meaningfulness of learning and stimulate students’ desire to learn. Blended learning has been considered as more engaging for learners because the on-line learning component allows them to control the learning process (i.e., to review and skip content) and provides them with a relatively care-free and safe environment in which they feel free to make errors (Noe, Tews, & Dachner, 2010). Authors like Kolb & Kolb, (2010) believe that a supportive environment as well as challenging opportunities for repetitive practice are conducive to better learning and would improve learners’ intrinsic motivation to play, learn, and experiment. Ayelet Israeli’s (2020) REMOTE framework (Reactions, Eye contact, Manageable, Organized, Thoughtful, and Engagement & evaluation) is quite helpful in this regard.

Replication of techniques that are effective in face-to-face teaching is not always possible with online delivery because students are not physically visible and are often unwilling to turn their cameras on. This has been considered by some (Tse, 2021, p. 98) as a ‘worrying trend’. So, an outright and complete turnaround regarding the issues standing in the way of learners’ engagement in online delivery is not a realistic proposition. The situation, however, could be improved with the right strategies. Issues relating to ‘content’ and ‘delivery’ could be better managed with the help of carefully chosen relevant materials, orderly delivery, explanations with current, familiar, and illustrative examples, thought-provoking activities requiring critical thinking, problem-solving focused discussion, and the use of humour and anecdotes. Establishing ongoing rapport with the students alongside timely developmental feedback on their work are also helpful. If students (can be convinced/required to) keep their video cameras on while online, some difficulties can be better managed. Similar efforts in the US were found to enhance teaching effectiveness and promote student comprehension and learning (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2017).

The option ‘to choose units and programs from among a pool of available choices’ is not practicable for many private providers due to budgetary and capacity constraints. For the same reason, providing ‘sport and physical library facilities’ may not be a viable option either. E-libraries are minimising this void to an extent. An attitudinal change with a degree of cross-cultural literacy among the teaching staff will smooth-out the ‘rough’ edges. Using a respectful tone and authentic delivery are likely to augment quality participation as really thirsty learners do not respond well when there is insincerity - whether perceived or real. A carefully crafted passionate appeal and the tactics of ingratiation might also work to an extent. 

As far as ‘learners and the context’ related issues are concerned, the options appear quite limited. The macroeconomic and demographic priorities and the policies of the Australian government seem to be having negative and cascading effects on learners’ motivation. It’s an open secret that the possibility of gaining residency used to be the most important determinant of learners’ choice of units and educational programs. The degree of involvement with the program and the level of motivation are correlated with the likelihood of gaining residency. With online or face to face learning, now the prospect of gaining residency is almost non-existent, and the obvious casualty is intrinsic motivation.

With the help of exciting initiatives, like inviting carefully selected students to have a one-on-one dialogue with the senior academic leadership/adjunct faculties with substantial industry exposure broadcasted via YouTube, a positive gradual shift in attitude may be possible. Well-coordinated and concerted efforts among the agents supplying students, marketing teams, overseas liaison offices, academic support services, academic administrators, and faculty staff might help to gradually shape learners’ thinking and behaviour. Aspects relating to perceived 'bleak prospects' by students are unlikely to be resolved at the institutional level as these are macro dimensions requiring the highest level (governmental) policy interventions. A quick fix is therefore not an option here.  With COVID-19 keeping all deliveries online, some of the actions described above will be difficult to ensure in the short run (Uddin, 2021).                             

Under these circumstances, it is logical to think that one strategy will not work for everyone. The strategies might need some adjustment depending on, among other factors, the background of the students being taught. Any generalisation that the learners from a particular geographic region are mostly identical regarding educational expectations and experiences may not deliver the desired outcomes in terms of student engagement and learning enhancement. For example, students from the Indian sub-continent are different in terms of language proficiency, attitudes and expectations compared to students from East Asian countries. It is, thus, quite naive to assume that 'one size fits all' when it comes to catering for international students. Moreover, students with an Asian background were found (Chavan, 2011) to have different learning styles to other students. Since no two individuals are alike, it is very unlikely that there would be 'one best way' to deal with everyone (Robbins et al., 2016).

Conclusions
For effective engagement of international students, one might have to look at several things. These include the context in which the learning is taking place, the materials that are being used, the learners’ ability, the facilitator's expertise and willingness, the reasons for learning, the atmosphere of learning, and the right approaches to take. Teaching techniques and styles also need to be suitable for the specific cohorts of learners considering their background and expectations. Just-about-right strategies coupled with a favourable atmosphere by taking the steps mentioned above are likely to improve students' engagement.  

Due to its limited scope, this paper could not cover all aspects, could not resolve all issues, and could not answer all questions concerning students’ apparent disengagement and remedies. Nevertheless, it has sown the seeds for a serious conversation about these subjects. To be of real value, and for all practical purposes, a longitudinal study would be worth contemplating at some stage in the near future. If, despite its limitations, this paper has shed some light on the problems associated with student engagement, it will have achieved its purpose!

Complacency, or a ‘do nothing’ mindset, have the potential to alienate the most strategic stakeholders i.e., the international students, which in turn might rattle the foundations of learning and teaching. Therefore, an engaged teaching and learning environment is in the interest of everyone engaged in higher education.

References:

Baron, P. & Corbin, L.  (2012). Student engagement: rhetoric and reality. Higher Education Research & Development, 31 (6), 759-772.

Bowen, S. (2005). Engaged learning: Are we on the same page? Peer Review, 7 (2), 4–7.

Chavan, M. (2011). Higher Education Students’ Attitudes Towards Experiential Learning in International Business. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 22, 126–143.

Cook-Sather, A. and Luz, A. (2015). Greater engagement in and responsibility for learning: what happens when students cross the threshold of student–faculty partnership. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1097-1109.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. USA: Plenum Press.

Israeli, A. (2020). Digital learning REMOTE a framework for teaching online. Harvard Business Publishing accessed on 28 February 2021 from https://hbsp.harvard.edu/inspiring-minds/remote-a-framework-for-teaching-online

Karasik, R. J. (2012).  Engaged Teaching for Engaged Learning: Sharing Your Passion for Gerontology and Geriatrics, Gerontology & Geriatrics Education. 33:2, 119-132.

Kolb, A. Y. & Kolb, D. A. (2010). Learning to play, playing to learn: A case study of a ludic learning space. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(1), 26-50.

National Survey of Student Engagement. (2017). https://bit.ly/2Kyxkzo.

Ng, S. (2021). Transitioning towards studying online: A reflection. An unpublished write-up by a current post graduate student studying with a private provider in Sydney, 1-8.  Australia.

Noe, R. A., Tews, M.  J. and Dachner, A. M. (2010).  Learner Engagement: A New Perspective for Enhancing Our Understanding of Learner Motivation and Workplace Learning. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 279–315.

Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research, 183–203. NY, USA: University of Rochester Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Robbins, S. P., Judge, T., Millett, B. and Boyle, M. (2016). Organisational behaviour, 17^th edn, USA: Pearson.

Tse, H. (2021). Plugged in But Disconnected: Challenges in the 2020 Online Transition.  Transitioning to Online Learning During Covid-19 Reflections by Practitioners. Edited by A. Hooke and G. Whateley. Sydney, Australia: Group Colleges Australia Pty Ltd, 95-99. ISBN 978-1-907453-30-4

Uddin, S. J. (2015). Disengaged international students. Negotiated Task submitted to Federation University for the partial fulfilment of Graduate Certificate in Higher Education qualification, 1-7.

Uddin, S. J. (2021). Covid Driven Transition to Online Teaching:  A Reflection. Transitioning to Online Learning During Covid-19 Reflections by Practitioners. Edited by A. Hooke and G. Whateley. Sydney, Australia: Group Colleges Australia Pty Ltd, 43-48. ISBN 978-1-907453-30-4

Zepke, N., Leach, L. & Butler, P. (2014). Student engagement: students' and teachers' perceptions. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(2), 386-398. 

Zhao, Y., Lin, S., Liu, J., Zhang, J., & Yu, Q. (2021). Learning contextual factors, student engagement, and problem-solving skills: A Chinese perspective. Social Behavior and Personality, 49(2), e 9796, https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.9796, www.sbp-journal.com, 1-18.

Biography

Assistant Professor Dr. Syed Uddin lectures in Business Management, Human Resource Management and Organisational Behaviour at UBSS. Formerly, he was a Research Fellow at the Loughborough University Business School in the United Kingdom. He has written many refereed articles that have been published in prestigious academic journals. Syed is a six-time winner of the UBSS Executive Dean's award for 'Outstanding Commitment to Teaching and Learning' and is a recipient of the Vice Chancellor’s Citation Award for outstanding contributions to student learning.