Are Engineering Students Engaged With Their Learning?

Tim McLernon, David Hughes

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterpeer-review


    There have been considerable changes in Higher Education in the UK over, particularly, the last two decades. Universities today continue to face key challenges in order to maintain standards and to provide business and industry with the necessary skills and knowledge for the future economic wellbeing of the country.The key recipients of higher education, the undergraduate students, also are facing key challenges which directly impact on their learning. The higher education theory and literature tend to tacitly assume a desire to learn and a thirst for knowledge which drives engagement on the part of students. The actuality is somewhat different; the key motivator for students is the exchange value of the qualification and as a result, learning is pragmatically strategic.This study sets out to determine, of engineering students, the degree to which they engage with their studies.Organisational differences can influence student behaviour and learning patterns. Although universities superficially have identical objectives, as organisations they can differ significantly. The context of the university, the formal and informal structures, the lines of authority and the relative emphasis on key activities impact on the degree to which objectives are attained. Consequently, this study examines the same issues across two universities with different historical backgrounds. The same data will be collected from students at similar stages of study in the respective institutions to determine any significant institutional differences.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationProceedings of the International Conference on Innovation, Good Practice and Research in Engineering Education 2006
    PublisherHigher Education Academy
    ISBN (Print)1-905788-11-8
    Publication statusPublished (in print/issue) - 26 Jul 2006

    Bibliographical note

    Reference text: References

    1. Entwistle, N.J., Thompson, S.M., and Tait, H., 1992, Guidelines for promoting effective learning in higher education, Centre for research on Learning and Instruction, University of Edinburgh.

    2. Marton, F., and Saljo, R., 1976, On qualitative differences in learning. 1 - Outcome and process, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.

    3. Pask, G., 1976, Learning styles and strategies, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.

    4. Entwistle, N., and Ramsden, P., 1983, Understanding student learning, Nichols Publishing Company, New York.

    5. Ausubel, D.P., Novak, J.S., and Hanesian, H., 1978, Educational Psychology: A cognitive view, Holt, Rinehart and Winston. New York.

    6 Entwistle, N., 1983, Styles of learning and teaching, published by John Wiley and Sons, New York.

    7. McLernon, T., Hughes, D., 2005, Functional Harmony in Higher Education?
    CEBE Transactions, Vol. 2, Issue 3, December ISSN: 1745-0322 (Online


    Dive into the research topics of 'Are Engineering Students Engaged With Their Learning?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this