Missing the Mark: lessons From Failing to Foster Learner Engagement in a Co-Curricular Program

IF 2.5 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Management Education Pub Date : 2024-05-06 DOI:10.1177/10525629241249764
Steven Hitchcock, Sandra Seno-Alday, Praveena Chandra
{"title":"Missing the Mark: lessons From Failing to Foster Learner Engagement in a Co-Curricular Program","authors":"Steven Hitchcock, Sandra Seno-Alday, Praveena Chandra","doi":"10.1177/10525629241249764","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Learner engagement, loosely defined as the extent of a student’s cognitive and emotional investment in both academic and co-curricular activities, is argued to make a positive impact on both the student experience at university and student learning outcomes. Universities often implement co-curricular activities and programs to drive learner engagement, yet it continues to be the most lagging metric in nationwide student evaluations of higher education experience in Australia. This raises questions of how to design and deliver effective and engaging co-curricular programs, however, there is scant praxis-oriented knowledge available. This article draws on the experience of a team of academics in an Australian business school tasked with creating a co-curricular program to foster learner engagement amongst an undergraduate cohort. Drawing upon engagement data from 1 year of delivery, as well as a series of semi-structured long-form focus group discussions with participating students at varying stages of their learning journey, this article questions assumptions about learner engagement and co-curricular design and challenges the use of learner engagement as a metric for evaluating educators and educational institutions given the nature of students’ relationship with their education.","PeriodicalId":47308,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Education","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10525629241249764","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Learner engagement, loosely defined as the extent of a student’s cognitive and emotional investment in both academic and co-curricular activities, is argued to make a positive impact on both the student experience at university and student learning outcomes. Universities often implement co-curricular activities and programs to drive learner engagement, yet it continues to be the most lagging metric in nationwide student evaluations of higher education experience in Australia. This raises questions of how to design and deliver effective and engaging co-curricular programs, however, there is scant praxis-oriented knowledge available. This article draws on the experience of a team of academics in an Australian business school tasked with creating a co-curricular program to foster learner engagement amongst an undergraduate cohort. Drawing upon engagement data from 1 year of delivery, as well as a series of semi-structured long-form focus group discussions with participating students at varying stages of their learning journey, this article questions assumptions about learner engagement and co-curricular design and challenges the use of learner engagement as a metric for evaluating educators and educational institutions given the nature of students’ relationship with their education.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
失误:培养学生参与联合课程的失败教训
学习者参与度的定义比较宽泛,即学生在学术活动和联合课程活动中的认知和情感投入程度,它被认为会对学生的大学生活和学习成果产生积极影响。大学通常会开展联合课程活动和项目来促进学生的参与度,但在澳大利亚全国范围内的学生高等教育体验评估中,参与度仍然是最滞后的指标。这就提出了如何设计和实施有效的、吸引人的联合课程项目的问题,然而,以实践为导向的知识却很少。本文借鉴了澳大利亚一所商学院学术团队的经验,该团队的任务是创建一个联合课程项目,以促进本科生群体中学习者的参与度。根据一年来的参与数据,以及与处于不同学习阶段的参与学生进行的一系列半结构式长篇焦点小组讨论,本文质疑了有关学习者参与和联合课程设计的假设,并对使用学习者参与作为评估教育者和教育机构的指标提出了质疑,因为学生与他们的教育之间存在着本质上的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Management Education
Journal of Management Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
14.30%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Journal of Management Education (JME) encourages contributions that respond to important issues in management education. The overriding question that guides the journal’s double-blind peer review process is: Will this contribution have a significant impact on thinking and/or practice in management education? Contributions may be either conceptual or empirical in nature, and are welcomed from any topic area and any country so long as their primary focus is on learning and/or teaching issues in management or organization studies. Although our core areas of interest are organizational behavior and management, we are also interested in teaching and learning developments in related domains such as human resource management & labor relations, social issues in management, critical management studies, diversity, ethics, organizational development, production and operations, sustainability, etc. We are open to all approaches to scholarly inquiry that form the basis for high quality knowledge creation and dissemination within management teaching and learning.
期刊最新文献
Teaching to Save the Planet: The Challenges Ahead for Instructors, Business Schools, and Universities Supporting Authors During the Writing Process: JME’s Online Manuscript Development Workshops Classroom Leadership Roles Activity: A Pathway to Sharing Leadership With Student Teams Exploring the Impact of ChatGPT on Business School Education: Prospects, Boundaries, and Paradoxes The Curvilinear Effect of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Intentions: The Roles of Entrepreneurial Passion and Resilience
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1