Introduction
Statement of the Research Problem
During the past three decades, Vietnam has experienced enormous economic and social changes Since the implementation of the policy Đổi mới [renovation] in 1986, the
Vietnamese economy has achieved impressive growth (World Bank 2008) with an average annual economic growth rate at about 6% (General Statistics Office of Vietnam (GSO)
The rapid economic growth in Vietnam has created a demand for a more skilled workforce and an enhanced standard of living for households, leading to a heightened interest in higher education.
The Vietnamese people's deep-rooted passion for education and their aspiration for higher learning are significant factors driving the increasing demand for tertiary education In response to this growing need, the Vietnamese government has implemented policies aimed at expanding access to higher education.
The Vietnamese higher education system has seen significant growth, as outlined in the national strategic plan for education from 2001 to 2010 The Prime Minister aimed to increase the ratio of higher education students from 118 per 10,000 people in 2000 to 200 by 2010 This goal was surpassed, achieving 170 students per 10,000 by 2005 and 249 by 2010 Looking ahead, the enrolment target is set to reach 450 students per 10,000 population by 2020.
Pham (2010) critiques the ambitious goal for higher education in Vietnam, highlighting the challenges posed by a shortage of qualified lecturers with postgraduate degrees and limited funding Consequently, Decision 37/2013/QĐ-TTg, issued on June 26, 2013, revised the higher education enrollment target to 256 students per 10,000 people (Thủ tướng Chính phủ, cited in Tran, TL et al 2014, p 34).
The Vietnamese Higher Education system has experienced significant growth due to policy changes over the past decades According to the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) statistics from 2013, the number of universities and colleges increased more than 2.5 times, rising from 153 in 1999 to 406 in 2010 Additionally, student enrolments surged by nearly 142%, growing from 893,754 in 1999 to 2,162,106 in 2010 This rapid development highlights the transformative impact of educational policies in Vietnam.
Vietnamese higher education has contributed to the socio-economic achievement of
Vietnam is focused on providing qualified human resources to lead its industrialization, modernization, and global integration (MOET 2009) However, this rapid expansion has raised concerns about the quality of university education, as students exhibit declining motivation, insufficient academic effort, and unsatisfactory learning outcomes Surveys conducted at universities in Hanoi, Hue, and Ho Chi Minh City have highlighted these issues.
45.6% of surveyed students felt motivated towards their learning;
50% of survey respondents showed persistence and determination in their learning;
59.4% of students thought that they could learn effectively on their own; (Nguyen, CK
34.2% of students surveyed had never missed class; and
29.2 % of respondents were satisfied with their learning outcomes (Dang Vu 2008a)
In recent years, there has been a concerning rise in the neglect of studies among Vietnamese students, sparking widespread discussion in mass media and educational forums Numerous articles have highlighted that students are increasingly prioritizing online gaming, internet surfing, and part-time jobs over their academic responsibilities During lectures, many students are often distracted, engaging in chatting or relaxation instead of focusing on the material Additionally, a significant number of students arrive at university unprepared for their classes.
The increasing lack of effort among students is raising significant concerns among educators, parents, and the public, as highlighted by Bach Duong (2015) and Viet Ha (2015) This issue starkly contrasts with the Vietnamese educational culture, which traditionally values hard work and diligence in academic endeavors, challenging the stereotype of Vietnamese students as dedicated learners (Nguyen).
Decreased diligence and studiousness among students can have serious repercussions for individuals, families, and society at large One major consequence is a decline in academic performance, leading to a rising number of students receiving academic progression warnings Many face suspension from their universities due to unsatisfactory results For instance, in 2015, over 1,000 students at Tay Nguyen University in Vietnam received academic warnings, putting them at risk of expulsion for poor performance This trend highlights the urgent need for addressing students' academic engagement to prevent further negative outcomes.
Every year, approximately 400 students are suspended, leading to significant time and financial losses for both students and their families In Confucian cultures, including Vietnam, academic success is a source of pride for parents, making the expulsion of students a source of deep shame for their families.
Insufficient effort in learning can have significant negative consequences for students, as neglecting their studies hinders their acquisition of essential knowledge and skills necessary for a successful transition to the workplace This issue is highlighted by data concerning Vietnamese university graduates.
A significant issue in Vietnam's job market is that approximately 50% of university graduates struggle to find positions that match their qualifications due to a lack of professional knowledge, skills, and attitudes expected by employers, particularly foreign ones (Vallely & Wilkinson 2008) Recent statistics indicate that 21.2% of young individuals aged 20-24 with bachelor's degrees or higher are unable to secure employment (GSO 2014) Furthermore, many graduates are forced to take casual jobs or work in elementary-level positions, leading to a high unemployment rate that places considerable strain on Vietnamese families and society as a whole.
The concerning decline in the quality of university education in Vietnam has sparked significant public criticism regarding the effectiveness and accountability of higher education institutions in the country.
(2008) note, the Vietnamese higher education is thought to be in crisis and is regarded as one of ‘the weakest sectors of the education system’ (Tran, TL et al 2014, p 19)
The low quality of Vietnamese higher education is primarily due to the system's inability to expand capacity in response to rising demand While the number of universities and student enrolments has surged dramatically, the growth of teaching staff has lagged significantly For instance, between 1987 and 2009, student enrolment increased thirteenfold, whereas the number of teaching staff only tripled This disproportionate development has led to a critical shortage of qualified educators, particularly PhD holders and professors, undermining the overall quality of education in Vietnam.
The shortage of teaching staff has resulted in a high student-to-teacher ratio of 29 to 1, contributing to the heavy workload experienced by educators (Tran, TL et al 2014, p 44) Additionally, the rapid growth in the number of universities presents further challenges, as highlighted by Professor Nguyen Minh Thuyet, a prominent Vietnamese educational expert.
Purpose of the study
This study aims to explore the engagement of Vietnamese full-time undergraduate students in activities that contribute to high-quality learning It examines key aspects of the university experience, including the time and effort students dedicate to their studies, their involvement in various class and extracurricular activities, and their interactions with faculty and peers Additionally, the research investigates students' perceptions of the challenges and support provided by their institutions Adopting a framework that defines student engagement as the time and energy invested in meaningful educational activities, the study positions students as active participants while institutions serve as facilitators of engagement.
A survey was conducted to assess the nature and level of engagement among Vietnamese students, utilizing adaptations from the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE) by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) and the 2013 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) from Indiana University’s Center for Postsecondary Research.
Eight instruments tailored for higher education in Australasia and North America were adapted to suit the Vietnamese higher education context To ensure accessibility for Vietnamese participants, these English instruments were translated A detailed discussion of the development of this study’s instrument will be provided in Chapter Three.
The instrument of this research explored ten areas of student engagement in which effective educational practices are grouped into benchmarks or indicators The
The organization of educationally purposeful activities into benchmarks creates a standardized framework for discussing student engagement and institutional performance (Kuh 2009a, p 13) Chapters Two and Three will offer comprehensive descriptions of these Engagement Indicators and their development process.
In addition to the exploration of the nature and the level of student engagement in
This study on Vietnamese higher education aimed to explore engagement patterns among different student subgroups, focusing on gender and academic disciplines A cross-national comparison was conducted to assess the differences in engagement levels between Vietnamese students and their American peers, while also examining the cultural factors that may influence these disparities The initial goal of this comparison was to highlight the variances in student engagement across these two educational contexts.
Due to the adaptation of the Australian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE), a direct comparison of student engagement levels between Vietnam and Australia was not feasible Consequently, the study opted to benchmark Vietnamese student engagement against that of American students instead Further details on this decision are elaborated in Chapter Three.
This research aims to explore the relationship between student engagement and perceived outcomes, defined by Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) as the growth students experience during their time in higher education The study examines various outcomes, including self-assessed gains in learning and development, academic performance indicated by grades, overall satisfaction with educational experiences, and career preparation These outcomes are evaluated through 19 survey items categorized into five measures: General Learning Outcomes, General Development Outcomes, Grades, Work Preparation, and Overall Satisfaction, with detailed construction methods to be discussed in Chapter Three.
While student retention is a significant outcome in higher education (Radloff & Coates, 2010, p 43), this study does not prioritize it due to the low dropout rate in Vietnam According to MOET statistics, only 1,200 students, or 0.12% of the higher education population, left university in 2012 due to financial difficulties, with 88% of these dropouts being first and second-year students (Lap Phuong, 2012), rather than third-year students, who are the focus of this research Additionally, gaining admission to university in Vietnam is highly competitive, requiring students to pass a rigorous entrance examination (Hayden & Lam, 2010), which results in a low likelihood of students leaving before completing their degrees, except in cases of academic suspension.
Third-year students were selected for this study due to their extensive collegiate experiences, which offer valuable insights Furthermore, the focus on majors within the Vietnamese undergraduate curriculum for third and fourth-year students enables a comparative analysis of engagement patterns among students from various disciplines.
The study explored the relationship between student engagement and outcomes across ten academic disciplines, considering how factors such as gender, pre-university ability, and institutional characteristics influence these results By incorporating these variables, the research aims to identify the conditional effects of student engagement on outcomes and evaluate its relative impact compared to other influencing factors.
Research questions
This study is guided by the two main research questions:
1 How do Vietnamese students engage with their study and educationally purposeful activities?
2 To what extent is students’ engagement related to students’ perceived learning, development and social outcomes?
As mentioned above, student outcomes will be examined in five areas This generates the five sub questions
2 To what extent is students’ engagement related to: a) students’ perceived General Learning Outcomes? b) students’ perceived General Development Outcomes? c) students’ Grades? d) students’ Work Preparation? e) students’ Overall Satisfaction with their educational experiences?
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
The theory of student engagement serves as a foundational framework for this study, emphasizing that students' activities during their time in higher education significantly influence their learning and persistence This impact is more substantial than their personal characteristics or the institution they attend (Kuh et al 2005, p.8) Kuh (2009a, p 5) highlights that this concept is based on a clear and easily understood premise, suggesting that the amount of knowledge students acquire is directly related to the effort and time they invest in their studies.
Student engagement is crucial for enhancing learning and development, as it emphasizes students taking responsibility for their education (Krause & Coates 2008; Radloff & Coates 2010) The more practice and feedback students receive in writing, analysis, and problem-solving, the more skilled they become (Kuh 2003, p 25) This engagement encompasses various aspects of teaching, the overall university experience, and students' lives beyond their academic pursuits (Radloff).
Students play a crucial role in their own engagement in learning; however, it is vital for educational institutions and staff to establish the necessary conditions and opportunities that foster this engagement.
The theory of student engagement, while well-established, primarily reflects Western educational perspectives, leading to potential disparities when applied to culturally distinct contexts like Vietnam Vietnamese student engagement may differ significantly from Western constructs, particularly regarding the emphasis on effort and time dedicated to learning, which both cultures value In Vietnam, effort is often considered more crucial to success than innate ability, resulting in a perception of Vietnamese students as hardworking However, there is a concerning decline in the effort and time that tertiary students invest in their studies Key differences between Western and Vietnamese educational perspectives include the role of students in learning; Western students are seen as active participants, whereas Vietnamese students tend to be passive recipients of knowledge, adhering closely to their teachers' authority Additional cultural distinctions involve the formal hierarchical relationship with teachers, a lack of emphasis on extracurricular activities, and prioritizing group harmony over individual conflicts Furthermore, limited resources in Vietnamese universities may hinder the provision of adequate support and services for students.
In the context of Vietnamese higher education, 12 educational features can significantly influence the conceptualization of student engagement, a topic that will be further examined in the following chapters of this thesis.
Astin’s (1991) Input-Environment-Output (I-E-O) model serves as a conceptual framework to explore the relationship between student engagement and outcomes The "Input" component encompasses students' pre-university characteristics, such as demographics, family background, secondary school experiences, academic ability, and expectations "Environment" pertains to the conditions influencing student growth, including institutional characteristics, programs, policies, and educational experiences Finally, "Outcome" reflects the changes and development students undergo after interacting with their environment, measured through grades, graduation rates, satisfaction, and persistence This model facilitates the assessment of how environmental experiences impact student development, evaluates variations in this change across different settings, and elucidates the mechanisms behind these transformations.
This study examines the impact of student characteristics, including gender, pre-university ability, and academic disciplines, as input variables Institutional characteristics and ten Engagement Indicators create the environmental context, while five outcome measures are analyzed as the results The rationale for selecting these specific variables for the model is elaborated in Chapter Three.
Significance of the study
This study on student engagement in Vietnamese universities aims to enhance the existing higher education literature by highlighting the unique aspects of student engagement within this context While extensive research since the 1990s has examined the link between student engagement and various academic, personal, and social outcomes, most of this work has been conducted in Western educational settings Consequently, the patterns of student engagement and their effects on student outcomes in Vietnam may differ significantly from those identified in Western studies, potentially due to variations in teaching and learning approaches.
13 settings, and in learning cultures Contrary to Western student-centred approaches,
Vietnamese teaching practices predominantly emphasize a one-way knowledge transmission from lecturers, who hold absolute authority, to passive and obedient students (Harman, K & Nguyen 2010) This dynamic underscores a hierarchical relationship between students and faculty (Nguyen & McInnis 2002) This research investigates how the differences between Western and Vietnamese educational approaches influence the level and nature of Vietnamese students' engagement in productive learning activities, as well as the connection between student engagement and their desired outcomes.
This study highlights the importance of student engagement in Vietnam's higher education research, addressing a previously overlooked aspect of student learning and quality assurance It offers insights into Vietnamese university students' learning experiences, their perceptions of personal gains, and their evaluations of university life Additionally, the research outlines the measures taken by Vietnamese universities to enhance student learning support.
This study offers actionable recommendations for enhancing student engagement in Vietnamese higher education institutions, aiming to improve teaching practices and support services with a focus on student learning By implementing these strategies, Vietnamese universities can create a more meaningful and productive experience for students, ultimately elevating the quality of university education in the country Additionally, the research introduces a culturally relevant survey instrument in Vietnamese, paving the way for future studies that can explore broader and deeper aspects of student engagement within the unique context of Vietnamese higher education.
Organisation of the Study
The introduction outlines the research context, articulates the research problems and objectives, details the research design and questions, and emphasizes the study's significance Subsequent chapters of the thesis will build upon this foundation.
Chapter Two presents a comprehensive literature review pertinent to this study, focusing on four key areas: the theory of student engagement, various surveys assessing student engagement, the correlation between student engagement and learning as well as developmental outcomes, and the specific context of higher education in Vietnam.
Chapter Three outlines the research process and methodologies employed to assess the level and nature of Vietnamese student engagement, as well as the correlation between engagement and perceived student outcomes This chapter is organized into eight sections: methodological approach and research design, population and sample, instrumentation, measures of student engagement and outcomes, data collection, data analysis, study limitations, and ethical considerations.
Chapter Four outlines the results of the data analysis, structured around the research questions It begins with a demographic overview of the study participants, followed by statistics on student engagement that include both descriptive and comparative data The chapter then addresses students' perceived outcomes and examines the relationship between student engagement and these outcomes Each section includes a discussion of the findings, culminating in a summary of the key results.
The concluding chapter encapsulates the study's key findings, emphasizing their significance while outlining relevant policy and practice implications Additionally, it offers recommendations for implementation and proposes directions for future research endeavors.
Literature Review
Theory of Student Engagement
This section explores the intellectual history and various definitions of student engagement, highlighting the key factors that significantly impact it It emphasizes the benefits students gain from engaging in their learning and effective educational practices Additionally, the limitations of current research on student engagement are discussed, culminating in an operational definition of student engagement relevant to this study.
2.1.1 Intellectual History of Student Engagement
Student engagement has emerged as a central theme in higher education literature, particularly in research focused on student learning (Kuh 2009a; Trowler 2010) Originating in the late 1990s, it is grounded in decades of studies primarily conducted in the United States, examining how students' experiences in tertiary education impact their learning and development (Bryson 2014; McCormick, Kinzie & Gonyea 2013; Solomonides, Reid & Petocz 2012a) Bryson (2014) emphasizes that the enduring interest in student engagement in the U.S is driven by the need to enhance student persistence and improve academic achievements among a diverse population of American students Overall, student engagement serves as an overarching concept that encompasses various aspects of the educational experience.
16 for a family of ideas’ (McCormick, Kinzie & Gonyea 2013, p 51) evolving from diverse strands of studies that contribute to explanations of student success They include:
Tyler's concept of time on task, developed in the 1930s, emphasizes the significant impact that the amount of time students dedicate to their academic work has on their learning outcomes (McCormick, Kinzie & Gonyea, 2013, p 51).
Pace's construct of quality of effort, introduced in 1980 and 1984, emphasizes that both the time and the quality of effort students invest in their studies and educational activities lead to positive academic and developmental outcomes This perspective views education as both a process and a product To assess the quality of effort, Pace created the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ), which later contributed to the development of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) as noted by Kuh in 2009.
Astin's theory of student involvement, established in 1984, defines involvement as the physical and psychological energy students invest in their academic experiences This engagement is positively correlated with enhanced student learning and personal development, highlighting the importance of active participation in educational settings.
Active student engagement in academic work and extracurricular activities, along with interaction with peers and faculty, significantly enhances learning and development outcomes (Astin, 1999).
Tinto’s theory of social and academic integration emphasizes the importance of students' perceptions of their interactions with faculty and peers, as well as their involvement in extracurricular activities This integration is crucial for understanding how well students perform academically and adhere to institutional rules and requirements.
(academic) Both social and academic integration have certain influences on students’ decisions to leave an institution (cited inMcCormick, Kinzie & Gonyea 2013);
Chickering and Gamson's (1987) good practices in undergraduate education emphasize the importance of fostering intentional interactions between students and faculty, promoting collaboration among students, and encouraging active learning They advocate for timely feedback, highlight the significance of dedicating time to tasks, set high expectations for students, and respect diverse talents and learning styles (Bryson, 2014).
Pascarella's general causal model (1985) explores the impact of diverse tertiary institutional environments on student learning and cognitive outcomes It identifies five key variables that influence these effects, either directly or indirectly, highlighting the importance of institutional context in shaping educational experiences.
Student academic and cognitive growth is influenced by several key factors, including pre-tertiary education backgrounds, institutional features, and the quality of student interactions with staff and peers Among these variables, pre-tertiary education traits, student interactions with campus socializing agents, and the quality of effort exerted by students have a direct impact on their growth In contrast, institutional features and environments exert indirect influences on student development (McCormick, Kinzie & Gonyea, 2013).
Student engagement, as conceptualized by George Kuh and his associates, including Alexander McCormick and Kay McClenney, emphasizes its critical role in student success and serves as a key indicator of educational quality Their work, particularly through the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), highlights the significance of student engagement in higher education Scholars worldwide, such as Coates, Krause, and Radloff, have further explored this concept, underscoring its importance in fostering effective learning environments.
& Leach 2010; Zepke, Leach & Butler 2011, 2014); Bryson, Hardy (Bryson 2014; Bryson
Research by various American and international scholars, including Hardy (2012), Trowler (2010), and Solomonides (2012), has significantly contributed to the global recognition of student engagement This construct has achieved its prominent status in higher education literature, as highlighted by Solomonides, Reid, and Petocz (2012a).
Student engagement in higher education has been a topic of extensive research since the 1990s, yet its precise definition remains debated Various interpretations and applications of the term exist, highlighting the complexity of understanding student engagement As noted by Baron and Corbin, definitions of student engagement differ significantly across studies.
Student engagement is closely tied to individual learning, defined as the level of effort students invest in educational activities that lead to positive outcomes (Hu & Kuh) This quality of engagement is crucial for achieving desired academic results.
Student engagement is characterized by cognitive investment, active participation, and emotional commitment to learning (Zepke, Leach & Butler, 2009) Coates (2008) describes it as students' involvement in activities that foster high-quality learning, while Krause (2005) emphasizes the time, energy, and resources students allocate to enhance their educational experience.
In some other definitions student engagement is viewed as a process Krause and Coates
(2008), for example, promote the development of ‘a broader understanding of student engagement as a process with several dimensions’ (p 503) Similarly, the Higher
Surveys of Student Engagement
This section provides an overview of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), including its international adaptations, benchmarks for effective educational practices, and its impact on higher education research and practice Additionally, it addresses critiques of student engagement surveys and concludes with a description of the updated version of NSSE.
In the 1990s, institutions in the United States (US) were under pressure by regional accrediting agencies to show evidence of their assessment of student outcomes and aspects
The effectiveness of traditional university rankings, which focus on institutional resources and reputation, has been called into question as they provide limited insights into individual student learning (Coates 2005) This realization has prompted scholars and educational leaders to seek more meaningful data on student learning and effective educational practices for institutional improvement (Kuh 2009a, 2009b) Consequently, student engagement has emerged as a valuable proxy for assessing quality, supported by decades of empirical research linking it to student success (Kuh 2009b) A reliable and widely used survey of student behavior and experiences is now viewed as a promising alternative to conventional rankings (Kuh 2009a).
In 1998, a new student survey was created to examine behaviors linked to key learning and personal development outcomes in university education, developed by a team of recognized scholars in tertiary education (Kuh 2001) The survey's design was coordinated by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) with support from the Pew Trusts, utilizing items from established research programs like Pace’s College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) and the Cooperative Institutional Research Programme (Kuh 2009a).
The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) focuses on student behaviors and experiences to generate actionable data that can inform intervention strategies (McCormick, Kinzie & Gonyea, 2013) Initially piloted in 1999, the survey underwent two tests, with the first involving 12 institutions and the second expanding to 68 institutions.
The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) was first conducted nationwide in 2000, involving 276 fee-paying colleges and universities across the US Over the years, its popularity has surged, with more than 1,539 four-year institutions in the US and Canada participating, and approximately 90% of them administering the survey at least twice within a four-year span In 2013 alone, 1.6 million students from 614 bachelor’s degree-granting institutions took part in the NSSE survey, highlighting its significance in assessing student engagement in higher education.
The NSSE, according to Kuh (2009a), primarily aims to provide institutions with valuable, actionable data to enhance the student experience By offering insights into student engagement, the NSSE serves as a critical tool for identifying areas that require improvement in both student and institutional performance (Kuh 2001) Additionally, it plays a vital role in documenting effective educational practices in higher education.
NSSE's second purpose involves conducting thorough and ongoing analyses of annual results to gain insights into factors that significantly influence student engagement and learning (Kuh 2009a) Additionally, NSSE aims to establish 'empirically derived conceptions of collegiate quality' as widely accepted standards (Kuh 2009a, p 10) To achieve this, NSSE dedicates considerable effort to making its findings accessible to higher education reporters, the media, and prospective students This includes initiatives such as distributing the NSSE Pocket Guide to Choosing a College.
College to prospective students or encouraging institutions to publicly report their performance on NSSE (Kuh 2009a)
The NSSE content encompasses both behavioral and perceptual dimensions, highlighting student behaviors that correlate with positive outcomes, such as reading, writing, and engaging with faculty and peers Additionally, it addresses students' assessments of their relationships with peers and staff, as well as their perceptions of institutional support for their academic success These conceptual components are visually represented in Figure 1.
According to Kuh (2009a), the NSSE questionnaire data is divided into five categories The first category focuses on student engagement in educationally meaningful activities, such as interactions with faculty and peers, time spent on studying and co-curricular involvement, as well as participation in high-impact practices like internships and research projects The second category assesses institutional actions and requirements, measured by the extent of reading and writing students undertake and the challenges posed by their examinations and coursework The third category explores students' perceptions of the institutional support they receive and the quality of their relationships within the educational environment.
Student perceptions of their interactions with staff, peers, and administrative personnel significantly influence their persistence and satisfaction in higher education (Kuh, 2009a) The questionnaire collects demographic information, major disciplines, educational status, and living situations, providing researchers with valuable insights into how student engagement correlates with desired outcomes across diverse student groups Additionally, students are asked to assess their educational and personal growth since enrolling at university, including advancements in cognitive and non-cognitive skills as well as vocational preparation.
Figure 1 Conceptual Elements of Student Engagement and Selected Manifestations
Note Adapted from 'Student engagement: Bridging research and practice to improve the quality of undergraduate education', by McCormick, Kinzie & Gonyea, 2013, in MB Paulsen (ed), Higher
Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol 28, Springer Netherlands, pp 47-92
The empirical approach to student engagement reflected in NSSE has attracted interest from higher education scholars around the world since the mid-2000s (Krause 2012; Ross
Conceptual Elements of Student Engagement
Quality of Effort Involvement Academic and Social Integration Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education
Participating in class discussions and making presentations,
Coursework emphasizing higher-order learning,
Taking part in events and activities, and
Quality of relationships with campus socializing agents,
High staff expectations, Institutional support
& Cen 2012) For these scholars NSSE can address their needs for assessment tools and policy levers to respond to challenges of quality in undergraduate education (Ross & Cen,
Launched in 2007, the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE) is one of the earliest international adaptations of the NSSE, developed by Coates, a prominent advocate for student engagement in Australia This initiative was built on Coates' extensive research into student engagement and was conducted by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) in partnership with higher education institutions in Australia and New Zealand Following the AUSSE, the Staff Student Engagement Survey (SSES) and Postgraduate Survey of Student Engagement (POSSE) were introduced in 2008 and 2009, respectively Since its inception, over 600,000 students and staff from thirty-eight Australian universities have participated in these surveys, highlighting the significant impact of the AUSSE, POSSE, and SSES on understanding student engagement in the region.
The introduction of the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE) has significantly heightened awareness among tertiary institutions in Australia regarding the importance of student engagement, making it a central topic in discussions about higher education policy and quality (Radloff & Coates, 2014) The Review of Australian Higher Education by Bradley et al (2008) emphasized the need for institutions to enhance student engagement with their learning environments and recommended that AUSSE findings be reported annually by all accredited higher education providers to effectively monitor this engagement Additionally, the Australian government's plan to incorporate student engagement metrics into funding arrangements for public universities further underscores this focus (DEEWR, 2009) The AUSSE has also provided valuable data that offers insights into student learning, outcomes, and perceptions of their university experiences, enabling institutions to benchmark their performance effectively (Radloff & Coates, 2014).
34 performance within or between institutions All these data are useful for the quality improvement of Australian universities (Radloff & Coates 2014)
In 2013, the AUSSE was replaced by the University Experience Survey (UES), a mandatory tool supported by the government, designed to measure and compare the quality of higher education services (Bryson 2014, p ).
The UES survey, while including student engagement, primarily emphasizes how students evaluate their experiences, staff, and services, rather than their learning engagement, as noted by Bryson (2014) Critics like Hare (2015) argue that the report is overly technical, lacks trend analysis, and fails to provide necessary context Coates, also cited by Hare, highlights that the report is "big on process and short on detail," with no qualitative data analysis Despite rising student satisfaction regarding teaching quality and overall educational experiences, the UES report indicates persistently low levels of student engagement (Hare 2015).
The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) has been utilized in various countries beyond Australia and New Zealand, including South Africa and China, under different names like the South African Survey of Student Engagement (SASSE) Fourteen additional countries have sought to translate or adapt the NSSE to fit their local contexts The implementation of these surveys aims to tackle specific challenges related to the quality of university education, with SASSE serving as a key tool to enhance retention, graduation rates, and student motivation in South Africa.
Interestingly, there has also been an increased attention to student engagement from some CHC countries whose cultural and educational contexts to a certain extent differ from the
US context Based on the NSSE, assessment tools for student learning experiences and campus activities were developed in some CHC countries such as Korea, China, and
The Relationship between Student Engagement and Student Outcomes
This section gives definitions, taxonomies of student outcomes, and methods of measuring student learning outcomes Moreover, the section presents research establishing the relationship between student engagement and student outcomes
2.3.1 Definitions, Taxonomies of Student Outcomes and Methods of
University education significantly impacts student learning and development outcomes, which are of primary interest to educational philosophers, scholars, and researchers (Coates, 2010) Student outcomes encompass the changes an individual experiences while attending a higher education institution, reflecting the developmental effects of that attendance (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005) Early definitions of student outcomes have consistently emphasized these transformative experiences.
‘measures of cognitive and affective changes associated with college attendance’ (Kuh
In 1981, it was noted that student development encompasses various dimensions such as achievement, knowledge, skills, values, attitudes, aspirations, interests, and daily activities (Astin, 1977) These elements are significantly shaped by the educational programs and practices implemented by the institution (Astin, 1991).
Pace's (1979) review of achievement testing and surveys conducted between the 1930s and 1970s identifies two main categories of student outcomes: institutional achievement and student achievement, with the latter further divided into different types of academic success.
45 university and after university For the purpose of this study, a focus will be given to student outcomes during university
Various taxonomies of student outcomes in higher education have been created to facilitate outcome assessment and improve program design and practices aimed at enhancing learning Given the multi-dimensional and complex nature of student outcomes, it is expected that these taxonomies exhibit significant diversity.
Astin (1993) categorizes student outcomes into cognitive (intellective) and non-cognitive (affective) domains, where cognitive outcomes include reasoning skills and subject matter knowledge, while non-cognitive outcomes encompass behaviors, values, and attitudes Similarly, Ewell (1984) classifies outcomes into four categories: knowledge, skills, attitudes/values, and societal relationships Kuh's extensive interviews with 149 seniors across 12 universities and colleges provide further insights into these classifications.
(1993) identifies 14 categories of student learning and personal development that are subsequently grouped into five domains:
cognitive complexity referring to reflective thought, critical thinking, quantitative reasoning, and intellectual flexibility;
knowledge acquisition and application including the ability to understand disciplinary knowledge and general knowledge and to relate learned knowledge to daily life;
humanitarianism referring to the ability to understand and appreciate human diversity;
interpersonal and intrapersonal competence including personal attributes (e.g., identity, self-esteem, confidence, and sense of civic responsibility) and social competence; and
practical competence comprising organizing and decision making skills, and vocational competence (cited in Kuh et al 2006, p.78)
In their exhaustive synthesis of nearly 2,500 studies on how university experiences impact student learning and development, published in the 1990s and in the early 2000s,
Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) identified eight key categories of student outcomes, encompassing verbal, quantitative, and subject matter competencies; cognitive skills and intellectual growth; psychosocial changes; attitudes and values; moral development; educational attainment and persistence; career and economic impacts; and overall quality of life post-university.
The identification and classification of student outcomes often align with an institution's mission and educational philosophy For instance, a liberal arts education encompasses seven key dimensions: effective reasoning and problem-solving, a commitment to lifelong learning, intercultural effectiveness, leadership, moral character, integration of learning, and personal well-being (King et al 2007) These outcomes aim to foster human growth and prepare students for a fulfilling life in a free society (University of California Los Angeles n.d.) The uniqueness of liberal arts outcomes lies in their holistic nature, which integrates cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal domains (Pascarella, Seifert & Blaich 2008, p 12).
The variety of outcome taxonomies highlights the diverse dimensions of student development It is important to recognize that student growth occurs in an integrated manner, as noted by Pacarella and Terenzini (2005), who state that progress in one area is often closely linked to, and may rely on, advancement in other areas.
The taxonomy of learning outcomes assessment methods is as varied as the taxonomy of learning outcomes themselves, featuring multiple classifications Generally, these assessments can be categorized into two main types: direct assessments, which measure actual student performance, and indirect assessments, which gather perceptions or reflections on learning outcomes.
Direct outcome assessment measures student performance through tasks such as tests, essays, and standardized exams, while indirect outcome assessment gathers data on student experiences and self-perceptions, exemplified by tools like the NSSE Although indirect assessments do not directly quantify learning, they offer valuable insights into students' motivation, satisfaction, and engagement The integration of both assessment types is anticipated to enhance the quality of teaching and learning.
Another classification is related to assessment approaches Coates (2011) proposes a taxonomy comprising five types of assessment regimes These regimes are categorised
47 according to their levels of applicability to the issue of generalised learning outcome assessment They include:
Local achievement assessment embracing direct assessment tasks tertiary students undertake during their course of study at their institution;
Generalizable achievement assessments are externally developed evaluations that utilize external moderation to ensure consistent standards Primarily focused on measuring domain-specific knowledge and skills, these assessments are widely utilized in regions such as South America, Mexico, and the United States.
Generic capability tests are specifically designed to evaluate students' essential skills and learning outcomes Examples of these assessments include the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP), the Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP), the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), and the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) These tests primarily focus on measuring graduates' attributes, such as critical thinking, inquiry, analysis, and communication skills, rather than assessing the specific knowledge acquired from their courses.
Tests of discipline capability emphasising core topics of the discipline at the end of a course of study; and
Licensing examinations externally developed to comprehensively measure specific competencies usually related to the professional disciplines These tests may have a link with accreditation (Coates, cited in Martin 2014, p.58)
Various lines of development exist for measuring learning outcomes, as highlighted by Coates (2016) One key approach focuses on specifying qualification-level outcomes, represented by frameworks such as the European Qualifications Framework, the Australian Qualification Framework, and the United States Degree Qualification Profile These frameworks outline general graduate outcomes for each qualification level, emphasizing a comparative description of learning outcomes across jurisdictions (Coates 2016; Martin 2014) Another significant approach involves assessing learning outcomes at the discipline level, exemplified by the Tuning Process, which defines both generic and discipline-specific outcomes for courses within a discipline at various levels.
The 48 line of development fosters engagement and enhances academic capacity within specific disciplines, though it falls short in advancing assessment resources (Coates, 2016) An alternative approach to evaluating learning outcomes involves the use of shared rubrics, which facilitate the comparison of assessment tasks and student performance (Coates, 2016) A rubric is defined as a detailed articulation of expected learning outcomes, including various levels of achievement (Martin, 2014, p.60) One notable example of this initiative is the VALUE rubrics created by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (Coates, 2016; Martin, 2014).
VALUE rubrics are designed to help educators evaluate essential general skills through a series of authentic assessment tasks that align with specific measurement criteria (Coates, 2016; Martin, 2014, p 61).
The Vietnamese Higher Education Context
This article provides an overview of the Vietnamese higher education system, highlighting undergraduate educational practices and the influence of Confucian values on teaching and learning It also addresses the challenges faced by this system and emphasizes the importance of enhancing student engagement.
2.4.1 Overview of Vietnamese Higher Education
The overview will provide descriptions of the organization and governance of Vietnamese higher education, the regulations and procedures of admissions to university, and the Vietnamese university student body
2.4.1.1 Organisation of Vietnamese Higher Education
The Vietnamese higher education system comprises colleges, universities, and research institutes Colleges provide three-year professional programs culminating in an associate degree, while universities typically offer four-year bachelor programs Certain fields, including engineering, architecture, pharmacy, dentistry, and medicine, necessitate five to six years of study to complete.
Vietnamese universities primarily focus on postgraduate education, particularly at the master's level, though not all are authorized to confer doctoral degrees Academic research institutes in Vietnam are responsible for conducting both basic and applied research, and they offer master’s research and PhD programs Unlike their counterparts in developed Western nations, which act as incubators for technical progress, Vietnamese universities have limited research capabilities and prioritize teaching Their main contribution to national development lies in producing a skilled workforce.
Since 1987, the Vietnamese higher education system has experienced significant growth, characterized by increased size and diversity In addition to traditional mono-disciplinary institutions focused on specific fields like law, engineering, medicine, economics, and fine arts, there has been a notable rise in multi-disciplinary universities This trend is evident as the number of these universities continues to grow rapidly.
Vietnamese universities are also diverse in size In 2007, for example, whereas big
Vietnam's higher education landscape includes two national universities and three regional universities, with enrolments exceeding 40,000 students in larger institutions and over 8,000 in smaller ones (Hayden & Lam, 2010; Tran, TL et al., 2014) The Vietnam National University in Hanoi and the Vietnam National University in Ho Chi Minh City operate under unique governance structures, reporting directly to the Cabinet Additionally, both national and regional universities encompass a network of member institutions (Tran, TL et al., 2014).
In 2004, 14 universities, including all five national and regional institutions, were designated as 'key universities' to lead the renovation of the higher education system (Hayden & Lam 2010, p 17) These universities are expected to spearhead the development of a robust research and quality culture (Tran, TL et al 2014, p 61) Currently, the number of key universities has risen to 19, all of which are public institutions recognized as top universities in their respective regions or in critical fields such as medicine.
54 pharmacy, teacher education, agriculture, economics, engineering and technology, transportation and military technology 2
Vietnamese universities are categorized into two ownership types: public and non-public, with the latter receiving no government financial support and relying solely on student tuition fees for income In the 2012-2013 academic year, there were 207 universities, including 54 non-public institutions, enrolling a total of 1,453,067 students Despite comprising 26% of all universities, non-public institutions accounted for only 12.2% of total higher education enrollments, primarily due to their lower status and public skepticism regarding private higher education Comprehensive statistics on Vietnamese universities, including the number of institutions, students, and faculty in both sectors, are detailed in Table 1.
Table 1 Universities in Vietnam in 2013
Note Adapted from Statistics on Education in 2013 by MOET 2013
2 The 19 key universities include: 1 Vietnam National University, Hanoi; 2 Vietnam National University,
Ho Chi Minh city; 3 Thai Nguyen University; 4 Vinh University; 5 Hue University; 6 The University of
Da Nang; 7 Can Tho University; 8 National Economics University; 9 University of Economics, Ho Chi Minh city; 10 Ha Noi National University of Education; 11 University of Pedagogy, Ho Chi Minh City; 12
Ha Noi Medical University, University of Medicine and Pharmacy in Ho Chi Minh City, Ha Noi University of Science and Technology, Le Quy Don Technical University, Vietnam Maritime University, Vietnam National University of Agriculture, Military Medical University, and Academy of Journalism and Communication are notable educational institutions in Vietnam (Wikipedia 2015).
Despite the mentioned above diversity, Vietnamese universities do not significantly differ from each other in terms of their missions, training focus, and training programmes (Pham
Ly 2015) It is difficult to determine whether a Vietnamese university places its emphasis on research, applied sciences, or professional orientation This blurred distinction, as Pham
According to Ly (2015), Vietnamese universities struggle to meet the diverse needs of society, as many institutions provide similar training programs This lack of differentiation hinders their ability to compete effectively for student enrollment.
Moreover, Vietnamese universities have difficulty in identifying their strengths to focus on in their further development
In September 2015, the Vietnamese government introduced Decree 73/NĐ-CP, which established a tiered classification system for universities in Vietnam, effective from October 25, 2015 This system categorizes institutions into three tiers: research-based, application-based, and practice-based, based on criteria such as their roles, training programs, degree levels, and the balance between training and research The aim is to help universities clarify their development goals and optimize resource use while enabling the government to create better human resource policies to address socio-economic needs However, many educators and researchers have raised concerns about the feasibility of these regulations, questioning their impact on budget allocations, tuition fees, and the potential benefits and risks associated with each classification Additionally, the similarities in training programs and confusion over research and practice activities make it challenging for universities to determine their appropriate tier.
The Vietnamese higher education system is marked by a centralized governance structure, where most public universities operate under the oversight of various ministries, with the exception of two national universities that report directly to the Prime Minister (Dao & Hayden 2010; Hayden & Lam 2010; Pham 2010; Tran, TL et al 2014).
The Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) plays a vital role in shaping the Vietnamese higher education system by developing policies and strategies It establishes regulations for the creation of new institutions, oversees student recruitment, manages instructional practices, and ensures quality assurance and accreditation Through these responsibilities, MOET is essential in maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of higher education in Vietnam.
the Ministry of Finance (MOF) that is in charge of allocating the state budget for higher education to public universities;
the Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) that in cooperation with MOET and MOF makes decisions on enrolment quotas and investments in public institutions;
the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) that regulates staff recruitment, promotions, remunerations and dismissals in all higher education institutions;
and the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) that allocates the state budget for research to tertiary institutions (Dao & Hayden 2010; Tran, TL et al 2014)
In addition to the systemic control exerted by the mentioned-above ministries, many
Vietnam's public tertiary institutions, exceeding 250 in number, are overseen by various supervising agencies, including 10 ministries and 63 provincial governments (Tran, TL et al 2014) For instance, both Hanoi University of Industry and Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City fall under the Ministry of Industry and Trade These agencies manage public institutions through funding, administrative costs, strategy approvals, personnel quotas, capital investments, and the appointment of rectors and governing councils (Tran, TL et al 2014) Additionally, the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) is responsible for the management of 54 higher education institutions (Dao & Hayden 2010; Tran, TL et al 2014).
In public institutions, internal governance is led by the rector and the management board, who are appointed and dismissed solely by the responsible line management agency Rectors hold significant authority over various aspects of internal governance.
Senior managers are responsible for key decisions including staff appointments, promotions, institutional teaching and research structures, and the allocation of discretionary funds (Dao & Hayden, 2010) Nonetheless, these decisions must comply with the regulations established by line management agencies.
A specific feature is ‘the parallel party structure’ in the institutional governance of
Summary
This chapter reviews the four areas of literature relevant to this study, including the theory of student engagement, surveys of student engagement, the relationship between student
Vietnamese higher education is currently facing significant challenges, highlighting the urgent need for researchers and practitioners to address these issues Enhancing student engagement, which is closely tied to learning and success, presents a promising strategy for improving the quality of undergraduate education in Vietnam.
The upcoming chapter will outline the research design, detailing the development and validation of the study instrument, the data collection process, and the research methods employed for data analysis.