A Comparative Study of Student Engagement in two Polish Universities

• Autorzy: Einolander J. , Vanharanta H. , Kantola J. , Paliszkiewicz J. , Mądra-Sawicka M.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.21008/j.0239-9415.2018.076.06

Warianty tytułu

PL

Porównawcze badanie zaangażowania studentów w dwóch polskich uniwersytetach

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Student engagement and retention are major concerns for universities around the world. It is vital to improve student retention by delivering quality education and engaging students in their studies, leading to student success and graduation and integration in the workforce. This study examines a degree of engagement in two Polish universities. The aim of this research was to evaluate and compare student engagement between two respondent groups. Data for this study were collected from 394 university students through selfevaluation using internet-based survey instrument. The differences between the universities were compared according to the current state, target state and, creative tension, describing the gap between a person’s feeling of current reality and target for future. The analysis of the test results clearly demonstrated the possibility to use such an application to evaluate the students’ engagement and, the comparison clearly identified considerable differences between the two university cases.

PL

Zaangażowanie i utrzymywanie studentów to ważna kwestia uniwersytetów na całym świecie. Konieczne jest poprawienie retencji studentów przez ich angażowanie i zapewnianie wysokiej jakości edukacji. Badanie dotyczy oceny i porównania stopnia zaangażowania studentów w dwóch polskich uczelniach. W badaniu zebrano dane dotyczące 394 studentów w ramach samooceny przeprowadzonej za pomocą internetowego narzędzia ankietowego. Różnice między uniwersytetami zostały porównane zgodnie z stanem aktualnym i docelowym, opisując lukę między odczuwaniem obecnej rzeczywistości a celami na przyszłość. Analiza wyników testów wyraźnie pokazała możliwość wykorzystania aplikacji do oceny zaangażowania uczniów, a porównanie wyraźnie wskazało znaczne różnice między dwoma przypadkami uniwersyteckimi.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

ontology; academic commitment; engagement; evaluation; student; university; comparative study

PL

ontologia; zaangażowanie akademickie zaangażowanie; ocena; student; uniwersytet; studium porównawcze

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Poznańskiej
• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Poznańskiej. Organizacja i Zarządzanie
• Rocznik: 2018
• Tom: Nr 76
• Strony: 87--98
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 16 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Einolander J.

• University of Vaasa (UVA), Department of Production, Vaasa, Finland

autor

Vanharanta H.

• University of Vaasa (UVA), Department of Production, Vaasa, Finland
• Poznan University of Technology (PUT), Faculty of Engineering Management, Poznan, Poland

autor

Kantola J.

• Poznan University of Technology (PUT), Faculty of Engineering Management, Poznan, Poland
• University of Vaasa (UVA), Department of Production, Vaasa, Finland

autor

Paliszkiewicz J.

• Warsaw University of Life Sciences (SGGW), Faculty of Economic Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

autor

Mądra-Sawicka M.

• Warsaw University of Life Sciences (SGGW), Faculty of Economic Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Morizot, J., Pagani, L. (2009). Adolescent behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement in school: Relationship to dropout. Journal of school health, 79(9), 408-415.
• 2. Arvidsson, F., Flycht-Eriksson, A. (2008). Ontologies I. http://www.ida.liu.se/janma/SemWeb/Slides/ontologies1.pdf.
• 3. Einolander, J., Vanharanta, H., Chang, Y.S., Kantola, J. (2016). Comparing university students’ commitment - a multicultural case study. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 17(3), 267-283.
• 4. European Commission (2015). Dropout and Completion in Higher Education in Europe. Annex 1 Literature Review.
• 5. Gruber, T.R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge acquisition, 5(2), 199-220.
• 6. Harper, S.R.. Quaye, S.J. (2009). Beyond sameness, with engagement and outcomes for all. In: Harper, S.R.. Quaye, S.J. Student engagement in higher education. New York and London: Routledge, 1-15.
• 7. Kantola, J. (2015). Organizational Resource Management: Theories, Methodologies, and Applications. CRC Press.
• 8. Kuh, G.D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6). The Johns Hopkins University Press, 683-706.
• 9. Lotkowski, V.A., Robbins, S.B., Noeth, R.J. (2004). The Role of Academic and Non-Academic Factors in Improving College Retention. ACT Policy Report. American College Testing ACT Inc. ERIC.
• 10. Lumsden, L.S. (1994). Student Motivation To Learn. ERIC Digest, 92. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
• 11. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday Business.
• 12. Skinner, E.A., Pitzer, J.R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. Handbook of research on student engagementpp. Springer, 21-44.
• 13. Student Engagement. (2016). Student Engagement. Retrieved from http://edglossary.org/student-engagement/ (10.12.2017).
• 14. Tinto, V. (2003). Promoting student retention through classroom practice. Enhancing Student Retention: Using International Policy and Practice, an international conference sponsored by the European Access Network and the Institute for Access Studies at Staffordshire University. Amsterdam, 5-7.
• 15. Vansteenkiste, M., Zhou, M., Lens, W., Soenens, B. (2005). Experiences of autonomy and control among Chinese learners: Vitalizing or immobilizing? Journal of educational psychology, 97(3), 468.
• 16. Vedder, R., Gillen, A., Bennett, D., Denhart, M., Robe, J., Holbrook, T., Neiger, P., et al. (2010). 25 Ways to Reduce the Cost of College. Center for College Affordability and Productivity (NJ1). ERIC.1.