A paper presented at the 2012 Design, Development and Research conference. A student’s experience in a tertiary programme should develop the professional skills needed after graduation as well as equip students with necessary skills to navigate real world situations. In the design field students work and learn in an educational design studio which mirrors the working model of professional design industries. Design students’ learning experiences can be investigated from both an external point of view, by establishing the level of student involvement, as well as from an internal point of view through the level of engagement encouraged by the method of teaching and learning. Student involvement, as explored in this paper relates to the framework develop by Astin (1984) in which he states: “Quite simply, student involvement refers to the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience.” If a student is involved they stand to gain more from the educational experience. This experience could further be enhanced by developing an engaging learning situation. The term ‘engagement theory’, as explored by Kearsley and Shneiderman (1999), is grounded in technology based education but can be applied to most learning environments : “The fundamental idea underpinning engagement theory is that students must be meaningfully engaged in learning activities through interaction with others and worthwhile tasks”. The Schlechty Centre (2009) describes students who are engaged by their learning environment as able to learn at high levels with a clear and comprehensive understanding of what is being learnt, as well as being able to retain what they have learnt and that they are able to apply this new knowledge to different contexts . The three characteristics of an engaged learning experience are collaboration, project orientated assessment and authentic (real-world) learning . These characteristics are similar to practical studio based education practices which focus on problem based projects, grounded in real world contexts. This paper investigates the level of student involvement of Industrial Design 3 students as well as whether engagement is encouraged within the theoretical subjects associated with this programme. To establish the level of student involvement students completed the 2012 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and findings are compared to corresponding data from America, Europe and Australia. The level of engagement experienced by third year Industrial Design students in the theoretical subject was documented through video and photographic ethnography. The aim of the research is to establish whether design students, with varying levels of student involvement, would have a more engaged learning experience in theoretical subjects if the learning experience was collaborative, project orientated and based in a real world context.

1. Encouraging engagement.
V. Du Preez & V. Barnes | Cape Peninsula University of Technology

2. A student’s experience in a tertiary programme should
develop the professional skills needed after graduation
as well as equip students with necessary skills to
navigate real world situations.
Learning experiences can be investigated from both an
external point of view, by establishing the level of
student involvement, as well as from an internal point
of view through the level of engagement encouraged by
the method of teaching and learning.
Introduction

3. Student involvement, as explored in this paper, relates
to the framework developed by Astin (1984) in which he
states: “Quite simply, student involvement refers to the
amount of physical and psychological energy that the
student devotes to the academic experience.”
Student engagement relates to the work of Kearsley and
Shneiderman (1999) who states that: “The fundamental
idea underpinning engagement theory is that students
must be meaningfully engaged in learning activities
through interaction with others and worthwhile tasks”.
Introduction

4. An engaged learner
An engaged learner actively participates and finds
learning meaningful. A learning environment which
encourages this is characterised by:
- Co-operative and collaborative learning
- Project based activities (often problem based)
- Real world application and relevance of projects
Introduction

5. An engaged learner
Kearsley and Schneiderman* suggest that engaged
activities increase student motivation, and facilitates the
understanding of diversity and multiple perspectives
Engagement
Principle*
Relate
Create
Donate
Teaching and Learning Activity
Small group research activities
Small group discussions
Class discussion
Formative peer evaluation and feedback
Industry related project theme
Project topic selected by student
Research required collaboration with industry
and/or relevant communities of practice
Introduction

6. Avoiding confusion:
• The term ‘engagement’ as explored by Kearsley and
Shneiderman (1999) links to the concept of
engagement theory.
• Confusion arises when referring to American sources
and testing of engagement as it refers to our
understanding of student involvement.
• To avoid confusion all resources and information
relating to the amount of physical and psychological
energy students dedicate to their studies will be
referred as student involvement.
Introduction

7. The main aim of this paper:
• To establish the level of student involvement in the
Industrial Design programme.
• To compare findings to at least two other countries as
there is no repository of data describing South African
students’ level of involvement.
•
•
To adapt teaching and learning activities within the
theoretical subject Theory of Industrial Design 3 to
focus on encouraging engagement through discussion.
To observe whether there were any changes in the
level of student engagement within the subject.
Aims of the Paper

8. The research methodology used in this paper is Design
Ethnography.
“Design ethnography is ethnographic qualitative
research set within a design context. It delivers results
that inform and inspire design processes... It offers
reference material about people's everyday life; their
practices, motivations, dreams and concerns.”
(Dr. Van Dijk, 2010:1)
Methodology

9. Ethnographic methods used in this project formed part
of a reflective cycle:
•
•
•
Students were observed through photography and
video during a student led lesson and discussion.
General observations and field notes were recorded.
Students completed a reflective questionnaire
regarding their experiences.
Methodology

10. The discussion of findings:
1. The result of a student involvement questionnaire
and international comparison.
2. The results of observations made in classes focussed
on encouraging student engagement.
3. Reflections of students.
Discussion of Findings

11. The NSSE test:
Students completed a paper-based version of the
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The test
was developed in the US in 1998. The test now has a
participation rate of around 750 American and Canadian
institutions, as well as adapted versions in Europe and
Australia.
The test covers a wide array of questions regarding the
level of student participation and their commitment to
their studies.
Findings: Involvement

12. The NSSE test:
The five categories explored in the test, are:
• Active and collaborative learning
• Enriching educational experiences
• Supportive campus environment
• Level of academic challenge
• Student – Faculty interaction
There is currently no equivalent test designed for the
South African context. The question types are, however,
structured in an open manner, requesting students to
comment on their activities and interactions.
Findings: Involvement

13. Results of the NSSE test:
15.0
11.5
11
10.0
6.25
5.0
0.0
SA
NSSE
AUSSE
% Students who never participate in active learning
Findings: Involvement

14. Results of the NSSE test:
47
50
45
40
39
37
36
31 32
35
30
SA
25
20
NSSE
18
17
14
17
11
15
10
5
0
0
Very Often
Often
Sometimes
Never
Engagement scores: working in class with other students
Findings: Involvement
AUSSE

15. Engagement objectives and session observations:
Session
#1
Traditional
lecture with
lecturer guided
discussion.
Session
#2
Small group
discussion
followed by a
lecturer led group
discussion.
Session
Session
#3
#4
Reading task with Student led
optional lecturer session.
led group
discussion.
Observations during all four session focussed on the
following – the students’ demeanour, participation and
communication
Findings: Engagement

16. Engagement objectives and session observations:
Session
#1
Traditional lecture
with lecturer
guided discussion.
Attendance:
41 students
Format:
Two 45 minute sessions with a 15
minute break in between
Function:
To identify the level of student
engagement during a traditional,
lecturer led theory class with group
discussion at the end
Findings: Engagement

17. Engagement objectives and session observations:
Session
#2
Small group
discussion followed
by a lecturer led
group discussion.
Attendance:
36 students
Format:
Introduction to topic. Small group
discussions (45 min) followed by a 15
break and class discussion (30min)
Function:
To identify the level of student
engagement during a session focused
on small group discussion followed by
a lecturer led group discussion.
Findings: Engagement

18. Engagement objectives and session observations:
Session
#3
Reading task with
optional lecturer
led group
discussion.
Attendance:
41 students
Format:
Reading completed before session.
Brief introduction to author and topic
followed by class discussion facilitated
by lecturer.
Function:
To identify the level of student
engagement during a session focused
on class discussion.
Findings: Engagement

19. Engagement objectives and session observations:
Session
#4
Student led
session.
Attendance:
41 students
Format:
Reading completed before session.
Session facilitated and guided by
students themselves.
Function:
To identify the level of student
engagement during a discussion
session facilitated completely by
students.
Findings: Engagement

20. Session 4: Completely student led discussion, lecturer is observer.
Findings: Engagement

21. Session 4: Completely student led discussion, lecturer is observer.
Findings: Engagement

22. Session 4: Completely student led discussion, lecturer is observer.
Findings: Engagement

23. Engagement objectives and session observations:
The teaching and learning activities designed for the
module produced a more engaging environment.
The majority of students participated at least once
during the session and small discussion groups formed
as part of the module are still active.
Student Reflection

24. Engagement objectives and session observations:
Students responded positively to the design of the module in their
reflective discussions and questionnaires.
“I think we are using a good method now. The group work helps me
understand concepts better.” (ID3. Q8)
“Discussion is a very good technique. Getting the whole class
involved makes a difference.” (ID3. Q20)
“I feel this method of learning (research groups, class
discussions, mini presentations) helps [me] understand and learn
better than previous methods.” (ID3. Q28)
Student Reflection

25. The way forward:
The theory of student involvement acknowledges that
the amount of time and mental focus that students
have, are limited. It is necessary then to ensure that the
time available to students be used for active learning
through engaged experiences.
Conclusion

26. The way forward:
The impact of the learning experiences documented in
this project need further review, however, the
immediate effects include greater student participation,
a deeper understanding of content and the
development of independent research and work groups.
Conclusion