University of Calgary
PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository
Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations
2020-06-29
Engagement in Learning: Supporting Female
Students at a UAE University
Davison, Christina Jean
Davison, C. J. (2020). Engagement in Learning: Supporting Female Students at a UAE University
(Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.
http://hdl.handle.net/1880/112285
doctoral thesis
University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their
thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through
licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under
copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission.
Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca
UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
Engagement in Learning: Supporting Female Students at a UAE University
by
Christina Jean Davison
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
GRADUATE PROGRAM IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
CALGARY, ALBERTA
JUNE, 2020
© Christina Jean Davison 2020
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING
ii
Abstract
Student engagement is widely seen as positively influencing learning in higher education. The
purpose of this study was to investigate female Emirati student perspectives regarding factors
that affected their engagement or disengagement in learning during their undergraduate programs
at a public federal university in the United Arab Emirates. The aim of the study was to suggest
how to improve support and cultivate student engagement in learning in the specific cultural
context. The study used a qualitative approach and critical incident technique within a
constructivist-interpretive paradigm. Interviews were conducted with 21 female undergraduate
students across all years and many programs in one university. Participants were asked to
recount two critical incidents: a time they were particularly engaged in learning, and a time they
were particularly disengaged. Data was analyzed in three phases, resulting in main themes
connected to both personal and social factors, as well as substantial wish lists for future
improvement. A cross-comparison of themes suggested antecedents and impacts of the critical
incidents. A contextualized model is proposed with four environmental levers that participants
perceived might affect their engagement. The levers are: (a) accessible language, (b) positive
instructor-student relationships, (c) a balance of independence, and (d) personal development and
relevance.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING
iii
Acknowledgements
I want to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Janet Groen. From day one of the first course I took
with you in this program, I felt supported to develop and succeed. I’m also grateful for all the
times that you encouraged me to dust off the metaphorical dirt and keep moving forward when I
wasn’t sure I had it in me to finish this.
I’m also very appreciative of my supervisory committee members Dr. Subrata Bhowmik and Dr.
H. Douglas Sewell, for your detailed and supportive feedback.
Thank you to Dr. Nancy Arthur for her guidance while being my initial supervisor when I started
on this journey.
I am also delighted with the support from Sally Jennings. I very much appreciate your
copyediting skills!
I’m incredibly grateful to Dr. Brad Johnson, for nudging me to start my doctoral studies and
guiding me towards challenging opportunities with the confidence I would be able to manage
them.
I’m also tremendously appreciative of Isabelle Kelly. You stated to me like it was a fact that I
could succeed in graduate school. You germinated the seed that made this degree materialize into
an achievable thing in my eyes.
I’m indebted to Dr. Brigitte Howarth for constantly encouraging or reassuring me academically
or emotionally along the way, whichever I needed.
Kind thanks to Dr. Barbara Harold and the CEI team for supporting me as I juggled completing
this while working full-time.
Huge thanks to my parents for their unwavering support. To my mom, for endlessly listening and
encouraging me. Your unshakeable belief that I can do anything I set my mind to is foundational
to my successes, and my reassurance when I hit the bumps in the road.
To my Dad & Sheila, that came to understand that asking the question “how is the doctorate
going?” was a landmine that needed to be carefully navigated. Still, you supported me to keep on
making progress no matter how small, and continually encouraged me.
To Mrs. B/Dr. B, I’ve always loved that you had the title but kept it under wraps. I can’t
overstate how impactful your role modelling and support have been to me from a very young
age. And to Mr. B, I’m looking forward to hearing that ‘whoop’ from the crowd again.
And I’d have never made it without a crowd of dear friends that have listened, wiped tears and
encouraged me along the way. A huge thanks to Kim, Becky, Liane, Tracy, Stephen, Caroline,
Sharmaine, Aysen, Kennon, Jen, Kathy, Inesia, Carina, Amy, Lynnette & Karen.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Research Setting.......................................................................................................................... 3
Research Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 3
Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 4
Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................... 5
Research Approach ..................................................................................................................... 5
Personal Interest in the Topic ..................................................................................................... 7
Significance of the Study ............................................................................................................ 9
Summary Overview of Dissertation............................................................................................ 9
Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 11
UAE Educational Context......................................................................................................... 12
Culture and Educational Context .............................................................................................. 17
Student Engagement ................................................................................................................. 22
Student Success and Engagement as Studied in the UAE and Gulf ......................................... 39
Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................................... 50
Chapter 3: Research Methodology................................................................................................ 51
Research Paradigm.................................................................................................................... 52
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING
v
Origins of CIT ........................................................................................................................... 54
CIT in Different Research Paradigms ....................................................................................... 55
Suitability of ECIT to This Study ............................................................................................. 58
Methods..................................................................................................................................... 61
Subjectivity Statement .............................................................................................................. 70
Trustworthiness ......................................................................................................................... 71
Ethical Considerations .............................................................................................................. 73
Limitations and Delimitations................................................................................................... 75
Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................................... 76
Chapter 4: Findings ....................................................................................................................... 78
Phase 1: Characterization of Incidents ...................................................................................... 78
Phase 2: Emergent Categories and Themes .............................................................................. 89
Phase 3: Cross-comparison of Incidents ................................................................................. 129
Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................... 135
Chapter 5: Discussion ................................................................................................................. 138
Comparison to Relevant Scholarly Literature......................................................................... 142
Supports and Barriers to Engagement: A Model .................................................................... 144
Implications of this Research .................................................................................................. 165
Suggestions for Future Research ............................................................................................ 167
Concluding Comments............................................................................................................ 168
References ................................................................................................................................... 170
Appendix 1: Informed Consent ................................................................................................... 188
Appendix 2: Interview Guides .................................................................................................... 193
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING
vi
Interview 1 – Main Data Collection........................................................................................ 193
Interview 2 – Participant Cross-check .................................................................................... 196
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING
vii
List of Tables
Table 1 Demographic Details of Participants ............................................................................. 79
Table 2 Included Incident Frequency by Type ........................................................................... 81
Table 3 Incident Frequency by Focus ......................................................................................... 82
Table 4 Participant Incident Focus ............................................................................................. 85
Table 5 Themes and Frequencies of Incidents ............................................................................ 90
Table 6 Wish List Items with Frequencies ............................................................................... 118
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Contextualized Model of Engagement Levers ............................................................ 145
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
The concept of student engagement commands attention from educational researchers
around the world. It is widely accepted that by increasing student engagement, learning
outcomes will be improved (Trowler & Trowler, 2010). Government policymakers often
consider student engagement an indicator of institutional success (Baron & Corbin, 2012).
University administrators are enticed by the concept as it promotes student retention, progression
and completion (Leach, 2014). Faculty members use pedagogical strategies they believe will
increase it (Taylor & Parsons, 2011) and engagement levels are often used as a measure of their
teaching quality (Leach, 2014). However, as increasing numbers of students are participating in
post-secondary education, there has been a trend toward less student engagement (Baron &
Corbin, 2012).
Researchers study engagement from a variety of perspectives and disciplines and find the
definitions and models differ. It is a multidimensional construct (Trowler, 2010), sometimes
described as a meta-construct that pulls together strands of research and factors that attempt to
explain and detangle the reason for student success (Fredricks & McColskey, 2012). Research in
the field varies widely in terms of analysis from a focus on individual students, minority and
non-dominant groups, explicit student populations such as international students or first-year
students, particular classes or subjects, programs, or institutions (Trowler, 2010). The scale of the
studies ranges from small (faculty members targeting interventions in one class) to international
(international surveys of student engagement). The context for research could also be K-12
schools (Appleton et al., 2008) or universities and colleges (Kuh et al., 2005). As an example of
the breadth of perspectives, Kahu (2013a) described a broad range of viewpoints on engagement
as behavioural, psychological, socio-cultural and holistic. The behavioural view examines what
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 2
students and teachers do to improve learning and primarily teaching effectiveness. The
psychological perspective sees motivation as an antecedent to engagement which as an
individual psychological process that changes with time and in magnitude. The socio-cultural
view emphasizes the importance of context and culture to engagement. Overall, research on
engagement is “underpinned by the constructivist view that education is fundamentally about
students constructing their own knowledge” (Krause & Coates, 2008, p. 493), and engagement
research looks for ways to create and sustain an environment to support that learning.
Much of the research on student engagement in higher education has been completed in
the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom (Leach, 2016); research on student
engagement in the United Arab Emirate (UAE) is limited. The UAE educational environment,
particularly in federal universities where the students are primarily from one culture and
instructors are often from different cultures, is reported as a cultural transition for students
(Hatherley-Greene, 2012a; Mahani, 2014) and instructors (Sonleitner & Khalifa, 2005).
Students’ experience in federal UAE educational institutions is potentially quite different from
students’ experience in the settings where most of the research about engagement has been
undertaken. As such, this work examines engagement in a specific university setting in the UAE.
The context of higher education in the UAE is unusual for several reasons. The systems
have grown very quickly and very recently. The UAE is the largest importer of higher education
anywhere in the world (Ashour & Fatima, 2016). Although the reported numbers are always
changing due to openings and closings, it includes three public (federal) universities and 75
(foreign) private institutions (Ashour & Fatima, 2016). Despite quality assurance efforts,
however, the preparation of graduates has been questioned (Ashour & Fatima, 2016).
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 3
Research Setting
The site of this research was a public federal university in the UAE, which herein after I
will refer to as Public Federal University (PFU). At PFU American-accredited programs are
delivered to students that are primarily citizens of the UAE and have varied levels of academic
preparation. Most students speak Arabic as their first language, although they need to have
passed a standardized English test (roughly equivalent to International English Language Testing
System 5.5) before being accepted into an academic program of study at PFU. Many students
made use of an English language preparation program to meet the language requirement.
The faculty and administrators at the institution represented 40 nationalities (although
primarily “Western”-educated), with the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and
New Zealand being the most highly represented. Most faculty and administrators live in the
country primarily on short-term contracts. The programs are accredited by both a US body as
well as one from the UAE (Commission for Academic Accreditation). The undergraduate
programs are gender-segregated, and male and female students do not interact. There are
essentially two parallel programs, male and female, providing a separate and distinct learning
experience. Students take classes from both male and female instructors. I argue that this
combination of factors differentiates the PFU from other institutions in which engagement has
been studied.
Research Purpose
The purpose of this research was to investigate the personal and social experiences which
participants perceived to influence their engagement in learning at PFU. Ashour and Fatima
(2016) argued that in the UAE the “quality of graduates must be improved by cultivating their
interest in education” (p. 588), so understanding students’ engagement in this context is valuable.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 4
The study endeavoured (a) to find how the students’ experience aligned with common
perspectives on engagement discussed in the literature, and (b) to identify factors particular to
the context.
Research Questions
The guiding question for the research was: What factors do female Emirati students
perceive to affect their engagement with learning in their undergraduate degree program? The
study was interested in both personal and social factors that may connect to the broader cultural
context. Sub-questions include:
• How do research participants define engagement in learning?
• What personal and social factors do students perceive to support their engagement with
learning?
• What personal and social factors do students perceive as barriers to their engagement
with learning?
• What do research participants wish for that would support them to be more engaged with
learning in the future?
Only a limited body of literature has investigated female student engagement in UAE federal
universities. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore (a) female students’ perception of
the factors they considered most crucial to helping or hindering their engagement, and (b) what
support they required. These factors were then compared to current perspectives in the literature
to illuminate factors particular to the UAE educational context.
I studied female students, as the university is gender-segregated in line with common
cultural practice, and the female undergraduate programs represent a majority of the student
population at the institution. Culturally situated research on student perspectives is needed,
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 5
otherwise researchers risk implicitly and uncritically assuming that the student perspectives in
this context are similar to others. Therefore, the goal of this study was to investigate (a) the
perspectives of female PFU students on the most supportive factors in their engagement in
learning, and (b) the factors they thought were barriers to their engagement. Understanding of the
female students’ perception of these factors and the support they wanted, is useful information
for stakeholders at PFU (including program designers, instructors, administrators and policy
makers) to ensure they are providing the experience, facilities, services, and support that female
students recommend.
Theoretical Framework
I approached this study from a constructivist, relativist stance. I was not expecting to find
a single foundational reality waiting to be discovered; rather, I assumed that individuals would
have individual representations of reality influenced by the context. I believe there are “local and
specific constructed realities” (Lincoln & Guba, 2000, p. 165) that are vital in answering the
research question. Further, I embarked on this study with an interpretivist epistemology. I
undertook this work with the belief that the participants’ observation and recollection of their
experience could provide indirect signals of important and useful information. I believed that
essential data was embedded in the recollected learning experience and viewpoint of participants,
and that I could develop new knowledge through interpretation of that information. I discuss
these underpinnings further in the methodology chapter.
Research Approach
As a researcher interested in students’ experience in a specific university, I was
concerned with the nuanced aspects that students attributed to helping or hindering them in their
post-secondary educational journey. Since the goal of the research study was to understand
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 6
students’ experience in a context-specific cultural setting, and because the variables that affect
the experience are unknown, I decided a qualitative approach was appropriate (Creswell, 2012).
This study was exploratory in nature, and the Enhanced Critical Incident Technique (ECIT)
(Butterfield et al., 2009) was selected to investigate it.
The details of ECIT will be elaborated in the methodology section but, briefly, a critical
incident study involves asking participants to identify events related to the research question that
they perceive as being critical. The reported events are then pooled and analysed, and common
factors in the events are drawn from their shared characteristics. The Critical Incident Technique
(CIT) was first described by Flanagan (1954) as a five-phase process of (a) establishing research
aims, plans and specifications, (b) collecting data, (c) analysing data, (d) interpreting, and (e)
reporting the results. This initial process was firmly placed in a positivist paradigm, where
“objective researchers” identified the critical incidents based on participants’ observable
behaviour. CIT has since been adapted by different researchers in various fields (nursing,
marketing, education, psychology) depending on their application of the method; more
commonly now, the research participants themselves identify the incidents they perceive as
critical. ECIT follows Flanagan’s initial five-phase approach and adds nine credibility checks to
increase the rigour and credibility of CIT.
In this research study, the participants were female PFU students in their undergraduate
program (as opposed to the pre-baccalaureate or master’s students) in spring 2017. I used open-
ended interview questions to probe participants’ experience of being engaged and disengaged in
learning, and then explored the personal and social factors they perceived as important. Although
the personal and social are intertwined, ensuring that factors from both angles were discussed
encouraged participants to identify what was critical in their own experience. I analyzed the
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 7
incidents, inductively created categories, grouped categories into themes and interpreted the data
to construct a new understanding of the factors considered consequential to Emirati female
students in terms of their engagement in learning. Finally, based on my results, I proposed a
model explaining contextualized factors that support student engagement within the context of
these research participants.
Personal Interest in the Topic
As a researcher, I became interested is this topic for personal reasons. Growing up in
Canada, I was a strong student in secondary school and was accepted to a prestigious university.
However, I struggled to find my place academically as an undergraduate. In classes, I did not
build meaningful relationships with my instructors or peers, was unsure of what was expected of
me and essentially never spoke in classes. I struggled to adjust to living away from home for the
first time. I was on and off academic probation, changed programs several times and barely eked
out a degree. I left university with significantly less confidence in my intelligence than I had
gone in with. Obviously, I eventually found my academic stride again, but it took well over ten
years.
I expect I would have appeared to many instructors as a disengaged, unmotivated, and
disinterested student. Perhaps in some ways I was. Since that time, however, I have worked in a
university setting for 23 years, in a variety of administrative, teaching, and learning support
roles. Since 2009, I have been living internationally and working at educational institutions in the
Gulf (Qatar and the UAE). I have worked in both teaching and support roles and am currently an
Instructional Designer at the institution where this research project takes place. I use my personal
experience of disengagement to influence the way I approach my day-to-day employed work: I
watch for students who appear disengaged and I try to question why rather than jump to the
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 8
conclusion that the student is simply unmotivated. I also used my personal experience to shape
my approach to this research. Over my 11 years working in the region, I have had many
conversations with colleagues who are concerned about low levels of student engagement, and
lament low student motivation as the reason why. While I believe that student motivation in this
context is different than what I experienced teaching in Canada, I believed coming into this
project that explaining low student engagement as solely a student motivational issue would
overly simplify the situation. In an effort to ensure the outcomes of the research would not
overlook factors that were under the control of the institution and the instructors, I wanted to
approach the topic believing that students were motivated to be in university to learn, and I
wanted to better understand aspects in the environment that would impact their engagement. As
such, this has led me to search for answers from the literature related to motivation and
engagement.
The context for this research is also important. I think there are common factors in the
way many higher educational institutions function but I believe some particular characteristics
and tensions in institutions operate in the Gulf. In comparison to where I had worked in Canada,
the educational institutions are young and subject to political influence. I have found the students
vary widely in their academic and language preparation, and the instructors come from all
corners of the world to deliver curriculum that is often imported, which can bring unique
challenges. At PFU, class sizes tend to be smaller and single gender; students are primarily from
one culture and their instructors are from another. There are no tenure-track or tenured positions,
so instructors’ relationships with the institutions can be transient due to the nature of short-term
contracts. I believe that the experience for students may at times be disjointed and confusing, as
there are many divergent expectations from instructors, peers, and families which could lead to
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 9
disengagement. Indeed, I am unsure that the current models of student engagement fully apply in
the Gulf context. In my own interaction with students, I have been unsure about what has helped
and what has hindered their engagement; this research project was in part a way to investigate
that uncertainty.
Significance of the Study
The results of this applied descriptive research study are of interest to administration,
faculty, and educational developers teaching Emirati women, as it may add insight and nuance to
the personal and social reasons why some female students engage or disengage in learning. The
results of the study may benefit future program design, support, and faculty development
initiatives in the Emirati context. The study reveals opportunities for program designers or
faculty members to consider in relation to pedagogical approaches that support engagement and
sustain interest. Most research on student engagement in higher education has taken place in the
United States, Australia and the United Kingdom (Leach, 2016), so this study adds a particular
cultural context. Engagement studies frequently examine the results of a certain course or
institutional intervention and their effect on pre-defined factors and indicators of engagement. As
a result, this study adds a distinctive angle to engagement research because it reveals the factors
that female students in a unique cultural environment generate themselves and identify as
important.
Summary Overview of Dissertation
This chapter provided an overview and a general introduction to the study. Chapter 2 will
provide a review of the relevant literature including the educational context of the UAE, culture,
engagement and disengagement, and engagement as it has been studied in the UAE. Chapter 3
will describe the origins and evolution of the Critical Incident Technique as well as the
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 10
appropriateness of the constructivist interpretation of the Enhanced Critical Incident Technique
(ECIT) for this study. The protocol for recruiting and selecting participants, data collection, and
data analysis methods used for this study will be reviewed. Chapter 4 will summarize the data
collected and the findings, and Chapter 5 will propose a model for engagement in this context
with a discussion relating the findings to the existing literature, and the implications for future
research.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 11
Chapter 2: Literature Review
In higher education literature, the concept of student engagement has been researched for
at least thirty years (Trowler, 2010). Scholars have defined and measured student engagement in
many ways, with the nuances noted in various theoretical models (Christenson et al., 2012). As
the models were developed, it is clear that although common factors exist, there are differences
depending on context (Bernard, 2015). Most research focused on student engagement has taken
place in institutions based in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom (Leach,
2016), which are culturally distant from the federal institution in the UAE where this research
takes place. This section reviews selected literature as a foundation for uncovering factors that
lead to engagement in higher education in the UAE, an area that is in its infancy in terms of
research.
The chapter begins with an overview of the educational context in the UAE. Following is
a summary of educational research conceptualizations of culture. The next section is a broad
review of how the education literature discusses the concept of engagement. Various
perspectives are reviewed, drawing from both school and higher education research. Also
reviewed are concepts such as (a) psychological explanations of engagement; (b) disengagement,
which has evolved into the concepts of involvement and integration; (c) institutional perspectives
formed for institutional improvement; and (d) holistic and sociocultural models. Finally, I review
the research on student engagement in the context of the UAE and Gulf higher educational
institutions. In this review I provide a perspective from which to investigate the construct of the
engagement experience of Emirati female students in higher education in the UAE.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 12
UAE Educational Context
The UAE was formed in 1971, combining seven autonomous emirates under one
government (Al-Suwaidi, 2011). It is an emerging country that, because of the wealth generated
from oil and gas, has especial advantages in the world. It is unusual in that the “UAE leadership
has preserved the society’s heritage and Islamic character, grounding new trends and modernity
in tradition and avoiding a complete rupture with the past” (Al-Suwaidi, 2011, p. 40). Although
many developing countries struggle economically and are not always able to invest in education,
the UAE has both the financial resources and the support of the local government to build
education with the goal of enhancing the population’s development and global competitiveness
(Kirk, 2010). The UAE government’s Vision 2021 document describes its commitment to
building a sustainable, competitive, knowledge-based economy and first-rate educational
systems (UAE Prime Minister's Office, n.d.).
Citizenship in the UAE is conferred primarily on the nationality of birth parents. Emiratis
have been minorities in their country since its inception. In 1975, Emiratis made up one-third of
the population of 558,000, but by 2005, they made up only about 20% of the population of 4.1
million people (Al-Suwaidi, 2011). Specifically in the emirate of Dubai, in 2017 only 9% of the
population were Emiratis (Dubai Statistics Center, 2019). The population growth has been driven
mainly by the economic needs of the oil and gas industry, as well as being a regional hub for
trade and tourism. Large numbers of expatriates coming to work in the UAE, rather than the
more ordinary demographic forces of fertility and mortality, have increased the population
quickly. In 2005, Emiratis represented only 8.4% of the workforce, of which 22% were female
(Al-Suwaidi, 2011). In response to concerns that Emiratis were not in control of the future of the
country because of the workforce imbalance, formal programs of “Emiratization” have been
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 13
developed to encourage the education and hiring of Emirati citizens in both private and public
positions (Kirk, 2010), mainly in middle to upper management positions (Gallant & Pounder,
2008). Many Emiratis decide to work in public-sector jobs, citing more flexible hours and
holidays as well as higher wages and favourable working conditions with which the private
sector cannot compete, despite government regulations to employ a percentage of Emiratis (Al-
Suwaidi, 2011).
The UAE is considered a “consumer” of education because they have imported most of
their education programs and staff. Kirk (2010) stated, the UAE “has a history of buying the
educational models and expertise it requires, as opposed to the lengthier, but possibly better-
suited process of building an indigenous education system from the ground up” (p. 4). In this
study, the term “traditional” university will be used to characterize institutions that have built
education systems from the ground up over long periods of time and have not imported their
models.
The first university in the UAE opened in 1977 (Kirk, 2010). Since then, 75 private
institutions have opened, often connected international universities (Ashour & Fatima, 2016).
Private institutions follow a wide variety of different models, outlined by Miller-Idriss and
Hanauer (2011). These include replica campuses of foreign universities (e.g.: NYU Abu Dhabi),
branch campuses of established universities (e.g.: University of Wollongong-Dubai), and foreign
style institutions that are modeled on foreign systems but not affiliated with any (e.g.: American
University in Dubai). Private institutions tend to draw primarily children of expatriates working
in the UAE, as well as Emirati students. Alongside these various types of private institutions,
three federal (but foreign accredited) institutions have also developed: United Arab Emirates
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 14
University, Higher Colleges of Technology, and Zayed University. The federal institutions were
originally modeled on foreign systems and tend to target only Emirati students.
The language of instruction in public primary and secondary schools attended by UAE
citizens is Arabic, although students may also attend private schools where English is the
medium of instruction. In tertiary education, it is either English (in the private universities) or a
combination of English and Arabic (in the federal institutions). The government pays the tuition
and material costs for Emirati students for higher education, and federal institutions have
admission policies that admit most willing nationals who have completed secondary school.
They are accepted into pre-baccalaureate foundation programs or directly into their program of
choice, based on their results on standardized tests.
The public primary and secondary schools, primarily staffed by expatriates from other
Arab countries, are characterized as being teacher-centred and religiously oriented (Dahl, 2010),
using antiquated curriculum that emphasizes rote-learning; they use standardized testing as the
main form of assessment (Freimuth, 2014). There are accusations that grade inflation in
secondary school may be as high as 50% and it is suspected to be tied to the level of influence of
a student’s family (Freimuth, 2014). There is a large-scale primary and secondary school reform
program in place, but many PFU students at the time of this study would not have benefitted
from it (Freimuth, 2014). The tertiary institutions have pre-baccalaureate programs that many
public-school students complete before entering academic programs of study. These programs
teach English and math and are often the first place where public school students encounter
learner-centred pedagogy. Hatherley-Greene (2012a) characterized the combination of the new
language and new teaching style by a foreigner encountered in tertiary education as a “cultural
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 15
border crossing” for students, drawing attention to the extra tension experienced by Emirati
students transitioning into tertiary education.
Alongside the free public system, many Emirati students attend private primary and
secondary schools following American, British, Indian or one of many other different curricula
and languages that cater to the broader expatriate population (Godwin, 2006). These schools
charge full fees and tend to mirror the norms of their home country, with no gender segregation,
different teaching methods and curriculum that does not necessarily include Arabic. It is
commonly perceived that private schools provide a higher quality education than the public
system (Goodwin, 2006).
Female enrolment in UAE universities has exceeded male enrolment since 1981
(Findlow, 2013), and two-thirds of Emirati university graduates are women (Dubai Women
Establishment, 2018). However, the motivation for women to study in the UAE is quite different
from what might be expected: “An appreciation for the education of females in the UAE has
neither in the past, nor in the present, solely been for purposes of employment” (Kemp, 2013, p.
268). Women’s gender roles in the family are often traditional in nature, and the purpose of
women participating in education is reported as improving marital status and preparing them to
nurture children (Kemp, 2013). Engin and McKeown (2012) reported about female students:
It is evident that students . . . are mostly extrinsically motivated, not so much by external
rewards such as job prospects and a good salary, but by others and society. University
education is seen as a goal in itself, as opposed to the Western notion of university being
a steppingstone to a career and promotion. (p. 9) [emphasis added]
If women do plan to work, traditional culture dictates that they are often encouraged to choose
careers based on what would best benefit the family rather than the individual’s interests (Gallant
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 16
& Pounder, 2008). However, UAE students have reported that their own personal interest was
rated as having the most influence in their choice of major, although when asked to choose
another person who had a strong influence, they reported family members (Gallacher et al.,
2010). More recent research by Engin and McKeown (2017) proposed that it is a combination of
personal and professional goals as well as family and social expectations that guide the decision
to study. It is clear that different factors related to culture affect women’s reasons for pursuing
education.
In summary, the context of the UAE is unusual in several ways. The country and
educational systems have developed very quickly due to the revenues of the oil and gas industry,
although strong ties to the traditional culture still exist. Emiratis are a minority in their country
because so many expatriates are hired to make up the skilled and unskilled labour forces.
Emiratis comprise a small portion of the workforce, although Emiratization efforts are being
made to increase these numbers. The country has chosen to import tertiary educational systems
to help prepare and educate an Emirati workforce, but it is a challenging transition for students.
The system is growing, with three federal institutions working under foreign accreditation
standards and 75 private institutions. Although public primary and secondary education is mainly
in Arabic, the tertiary institutions are primarily in English, requiring various bridging programs
to prepare students for academic programs. Public primary and secondary schools have been
criticized for being outdated and teacher-centric, but they are being overhauled. Private schools
from around the world mean students can take a variety of curricula for a fee. Women outnumber
men in higher education in the country, although their motivation for pursuing higher education
degrees is more often a goal in itself rather than a vehicle towards a career. With so many
contextual and cultural factors in the UAE being unlike the countries where most educational
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 17
engagement research has occurred, it is important to undertake research that includes UAE
student perceptions.
Culture and Educational Context
Culture is a sociological concept and understood in adult education as the “shared values,
attitudes, beliefs, behaviours, and language use within a social group” (Guy, 1999, p. 7). A
person’s culture may affect the way in which they interpret and experience the world around
them, although cultural groups are not homogeneous (Guo & Jamal, 2007). In a discussion on
culture, and especially cultural diversity, it is important to recognize that individuals who are part
of a cultural group may or may not have the same experience as the generalizations made about
that group (Guy, 1999). A considerable amount of study in cross-cultural communication is
based on the work of Hofstede, who described cultural group characteristics in terms of falling
on linear continuums (e.g., individualism vs. collectivism, or low- and high-power distance).
This typology encourages stereotyping and may not reflect the reality of culture change based on
context (Ryan, 2011). It is important to recognize that individuals may not have the
characteristics that commonly explain cultural groups. Although race or ethnicity may be
recognizable symbols of a culture, they include intersections with class and gender and many
other factors in a cultural group that vastly change a person’s experience in the group (Guo &
Jamal, 2007). The boundaries of cultural groups and practices are fluid in nature.
Culture is an important consideration in educational environments because “learner
engagement is, at least in part, a feature of cultural identity” (Closson, 2013, p. 64). Lin (2006)
drew attention to the idea that behaviours appropriate in one culture may be interpreted
differently in another culture. Lin (2006) stated:
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 18
For instance, standing or speaking up for oneself is considered authentic in one culture,
but it may be seen as egotistical or shameful in another. Holding back one’s own thoughts
to avoid temporary conflict or for the benefit of a community is considered gracious and
altruistic in one culture, but cowardly or even deceitful in another. (p. 64)
It is important to note that the way that a university functions with its academic expectations,
social rules, and norms is a culture in itself. Cultural practices shape teaching and learning
principles and are not a universal reality (Ryan, 2011).
The concept of culture in educational literature reflects its history. Terms such as
multicultural, culturally inclusive, intercultural, and cross-cultural are used in discussions related
to cultural contexts. Each of these terms will be analyzed to frame this research through the
consistent use of terms as a common language for the purpose of a critique.
Multicultural
A multicultural environment implies that there are multiple and distinct groups, each
represented by its values, attitudes, and beliefs, gathered together in one place. The term
“multicultural education” in the literature developed from the Black civil rights movement in the
United States and the advocacy of equal representation of the rights of Black students in the
school system (Vang, 2010). Around the same time, the French and First Nations peoples in
Canada also participated in a call for equality (Banks, 2009). Multicultural education is based on
alleviating the disadvantages experienced by minority students (Verma, 2007) and on giving all
students an equal opportunity to succeed in educational endeavours.
Inclusive
The term “inclusive” in relation to education is primarily used in the literature to mean
the acceptance of all students into educational settings regardless of physical, cognitive, or
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 19
sensory needs (Jha, 2007). From this perspective, educational institutions need to make changes
to adapt to students, rather than requiring students to modify their behaviour. Although the focus
of inclusive education has been on students with disabilities, there is also mention of factors such
as gender, ethnicity, culture, and religion. In a similar vein, culturally inclusive pedagogy is a
concept based on the idea that the educational institution should adapt to culturally diverse
student needs, rather than focusing on the student making the adaptation (Blasco, 2015).
Although the most effective type of adaptation for different cultures may not be clear, the
primary point in culturally inclusive pedagogy is that the responsibility to adapt does not solely
rest on the students. The history of multicultural and inclusive education reflects the roots of
much of the literature on culture in student engagement research which will be reviewed in the
next section.
Intercultural and cross-cultural
The term “intercultural” is used throughout the literature in discussion of culture and is
linked with other terms that include: intercultural understanding, intercultural sensitivity,
intercultural competence, intercultural communication (Perry & Southwell, 2011), and/or
intercultural learning (Bennett, 2009). “Intercultural” means the interaction between people from
different cultures, which is different from “multicultural,” which means the recognition of
multiple cultures (Banks, 2009). The term “cross-cultural” describes comparisons between
cultures (Mertens, 2007). Nevertheless, the literature has used the term “cross-cultural”
interchangeably with “intercultural,” so this research will use the term “intercultural.”
Usually the term intercultural would refer to people from many different cultures
interacting, such as a classroom with students from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds.
However, the context at PFU is slightly different in that the students are primarily from one
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 20
culture and the majority of instructors and administrators are from multiple other cultures. While
this is not necessarily the way that the term is traditionally used, I will use it to refer to the
context in which instructors and students need to interact. Intercultural competence is an
umbrella term, describing “effective and appropriate behaviour and communication in
intercultural situations” (Deardorff, 2011, p. 66).
Intercultural understanding or intercultural sensitivity is considered a precursor to
intercultural competence and is connected to the cognitive and affective domains (Perry &
Southwell, 2011). To achieve intercultural understanding or sensitivity, Perry and Southwell
(2011) explained that a person needs to understand their own culture as well as other cultures.
Likewise, affectively, a person needs to have a positive attitude toward other cultures. Positive
attitudes include: empathy, curiosity, and respect. For understanding or sensitivity to become
competence, the cognitive and affective parts of intercultural understanding are the foundation
for additional behavioural skills that facilitate effective communication between people in
different cultural contexts (Perry & Southwell, 2011). “Cultural humility” is another term used in
counselling psychology, which is demonstrated when a counsellor is able to maintain an attitude
that “expresses respect and a lack of superiority even when cultural differences threaten to
weaken” the relationship with the client (Hook et al., 2013, p. 354). The term is based on the idea
that intercultural competence infers there is a finite amount of knowledge to be learned to
become “competent,” while “cultural humility” implies that a person never presumes they are
competent, based on knowledge or previous experience working with a particular cultural group.
Rather a culturally humble person approaches individuals with curiosity about their
intersectionality of identities (Hook et al., 2013). Achieving a culturally humble stance is of
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 21
utmost importance for instructors working in the UAE setting, as they are the power figures in
the intercultural classrooms and have a profound effect on the classroom environment.
Context Summary
In this section, several terms used in the literature on culture in higher education have
been reviewed: culture, multicultural, culturally inclusive, intercultural, and cross-cultural. The
terms “intercultural competence” or “cultural humility” are the closest to an umbrella term to
encapsulate the ability to communicate and behave appropriately and effectively when people
from different cultures attempt to work together.
This research is situated in an environment where most students are of one nationality,
and although generalizations must be avoided, they are presumably from a similar cultural
background. Instructors and administrators come from a wide variety of nationalities and
cultures but the common factor is that their education has occurred primarily in Western
institutions. These groups then come together in an American style educational institution, which
expects multiple cultures to work together. If female students do or do not experience
intercultural competence or cultural humility from faculty, administrators, and the institution, it
could have a major effect on their sense of belonging in the institution and their engagement in
the educational experience.
In the following section, definitions and approaches to the study of student engagement
will be investigated. However, it is important to be cognizant that these ideas have been
developed in primarily in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom: environments
that are entrenched in multicultural (focused on the presence and recognition of multiple
cultures) or inclusive (acceptance of all students into educational settings regardless of physical,
cognitive or sensory needs), which is different than the environment in this study, where students
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 22
tend to be from one culture and instructors from many others. The culture of the traditional
institutions that have developed the engagement construct presumably reflect the dominant
cultures’ norms in their countries. In the case of the UAE, the government has largely imported
expatriates to teach in foreign-style educational institutions. The institutions, therefore, reflect
the dominant cultural norms of foreign countries, which creates tension for both instructors and
students in this unusual context.
Student Engagement
Engagement is “ widely recognized as an important influence on achievement and
learning in higher education” (Kahu, 2013b, p. 758), so there have been a variety of different
approaches taken to researching it. I will summarize a variety of perspectives to account for the
breadth and disparity in conceptualizations. First, I will outline the critical relationship between
engagement and motivation and use that as a background to understanding the definition I have
selected for this study. Next, I will review the psychological perspective, where the root concepts
of behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement are delineated. Then I will characterize what I
have called the disengagement and institutional perspectives, which represent the evolution of
engagement research within higher educational contexts, driven by institutional interests in
student retention and broad efforts to understand how to support student success. Penultimately I
will examine some student-focused conceptions of engagement, and finally I will summarize the
holistic/sociocultural conceptions that attempt to draw together all of these veins of research as
they related to specific contexts.
Relationship between engagement and motivation
Although there is widespread agreement that engagement is vital to learning, there is
“debate over the exact nature of the construct” (Kahu, 2013a, p. 758). The consensus among
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 23
scholars, because of their many backgrounds, may not even be possible but it is important that
authors discuss their definitions. As such, I will review some perspectives and select a position
for this study.
There is an unresolved tension in the field on whether the definition of engagement
should be broad, or if it should be narrower (Eccles & Wang, 2012). When the definition is
broad, Eccles and Wang (2012) argued that it is more useful for policy making, and will increase
the overlap with other theories. However, more narrow definitions make the concept easier to
measure, and to explain clearer relationships to existing theories related to learning and teaching
(Eccles & Wang, 2012). Many researchers agree that engagement is a multidimensional
construct made up of the interrelation of observable behaviours, internal cognition, and
emotions. However, it becomes complicated as these three areas are differentiated into scales or
categorizations for measurement, and often something that is “one author’s conceptualization of
the components of behavioural engagement is another’s operationalization of cognitive
engagement” (Christenson et al., 2012, p. 814).
An example of the broad/narrow tension becomes clear when authors discuss their
conception of the relationship between engagement and motivation. First, in some literature the
terms are used synonymously, without delineating similarities or differences (Finn & Zimmer,
2012). For those with narrower definitions, that see engagement and motivation as distinct but
related fields, the difference is based on the focus. Motivation is the private and unobservable
psychological process that is the precursor to the “publicly observable behaviour that is
engagement” (Reeve, 2012, p. 151). Alternatively, engagement is the action or the observable
behaviour, internal cognition, and emotional expression of motivation. Motivational research
tends to be concerned with the individual underlying psychological processes that direct
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 24
behaviour, and “attribute[s] its source to inner drives to meet underlying psychological needs”
(Finn & Zimmer, 2012, p. 105); engagement is concerned with the daily experiences and
interactions and “tends to be thought of in terms of action, or the behavioural, emotional and
cognitive manifestations of motivation” (Fredricks & McColskey, 2012, p. 765). In the
engagement research with narrower definitions it is common to argue that “engagement and
motivation are separate, but related constructs, wherein motivation is necessary but not sufficient
for engagement” (Reschly & Christenson, 2012, p. 14).
In broader definitions, the relationship between engagement and motivation is less
defined. One of the most common definitions in higher education comes from Kuh, Kinzie,
Buckley, Bridges, and Hayek (2007), and describes what the institution and the student do. For
students, this is “the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other
educationally purposeful activities” (p. 44); for the institution, it is how it “deploys its resources
and organizes the curriculum, other learning opportunities, and support services to induce
students to participate in activities that lead to the experiences and desired outcomes such as
persistence, satisfaction, learning, and graduation” (p. 44). In a similar vein, Krause and Coates
(2008) stated, “[Engagement] is a broad phenomenon that includes academic as well as selected
non-academic and social aspects of the student experience” (p. 493). The Kuh et al. (2007)
definition is an example of a broad take, where they situated that student engagement is “at the
intersection of student behaviors and institutional conditions” (p. 11). Motivation as a concept is
firmly subsumed as part of student behaviours, as well as other student factors like study habits,
peer involvement, and interaction with faculty. However, institutional conditions like academic
support, first year experiences, campus environment, and teaching and learning approaches all
play a part in engagement as well. Broad definitions run the risk of becoming “everything and
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 25
anything that is related to students’ and teachers’ functioning in the school context” (Eccles &
Wang, 2012, p. 138) but also allows investigations that give both the institution and the student
equal footing and responsibility for engagement.
Trowler (2015) noted that the commonly used phrase “engagement of students” ascribes
the responsibility of engagement to the institution and denies student agency. However, the
common phrase “engagement by students” seems to credit the responsibility wholly to the
student. Engagement is a multidimensional construct describing the interaction between the
individual and their environment (Fredricks et al., 2004), with some responsibility for
engagement lying with both.
Connected to this is another key idea in engagement, that it cannot be separated from the
context (Lawson & Lawson, 2013). As stated by Reeve (2012), a student may have the
motivation to learn outside the classroom but in the classroom, they are engulfed in a social
context where the teacher and the learning environment either support or frustrate their
motivation. In this situation, “Every student’s classroom engagement is invariably a joint product
of his or her motivation and classroom supports versus thwarts” (p. 152).
A further critical assumption is that student engagement is malleable (Lawson & Lawson,
2013), varies in intensity, and is responsive to the environment. This means that engagement can
be improved by making modifications, for example, to teaching approaches or other targeted
interventions (Fredricks et al., 2004). Another supposition is that engagement is a direct pathway
to learning and that by improving engagement, learning will also be improved (Lawson &
Lawson, 2013). However, an alternative stream of literature questions whether engagement
strategies “are effective in producing learning gain, and critiquing their behavioural effects on
students” (Macfarlane & Tomlinson, 2017, p. 1). It is generally held that a lot can be done to
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 26
improve engagement (Kahu, 2013a), and that by improving engagement, it leads to improved
student outcomes.
On the final pages of an 800-page volume on student engagement research in schools,
Christenson, Reschly, and Wylie (2012) defined engagement as follows:
Student engagement refers to the student’s active participation in academic and co-
curricular or school-related activities, and commitment to educational goals and learning.
Engaged students find learning meaningful and are invested in their learning and future.
It is a multidimensional construct that consists of behavioural (including academic),
cognitive, and affective subtypes. Student engagement drives learning; requires energy
and effort; is affected by multiple contextual influences; and can be achieved for all
learners. (pp. 816-817)
This definition is based on a broad set of K-12 research after summarizing a large amount of
engagement related research. This is a commonly used definition of engagement; however I have
chosen not to use it for this project. I made this decision first, because it is based in K-12
research. There is a contextual difference between higher education and K-12 because primary
and secondary school attendance is usually required and is not voluntary for students like higher
education attendance is. Second, the contextual influences of where the engagement happens are
underplayed in this definition, and for an applied project like this one where I am interested in
understanding the student experience in a specific context, it is important that the institutional
role is given more prominence. Third, I find that excluding motivation from the definition of
engagement side-steps an important concept. The definition I have selected is one of the broader
definitions, arrived at in a higher education context through a principle-based concept analysis,
Bernard (2015) defined student engagement as:
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 27
A dynamic process marked by a positive behavioural, cognitive, and affective state
exhibited in the pursuit of deep learning. This process is bound by contextual
preconditions of self-investment, motivation, and a valuing of learning. Outcomes of
student engagement include satisfaction, a sense of well-being, and personal
development. The iterative experience of engagement occurs within a given educational
framework influenced by a broader sociocultural context. (p. 118)
This definition, particularly because of the way it was developed, reflects the broad range of
research domains from which engagement studies draw, and is centered in higher education. This
broad definition (over a narrow one) is useful because an outcome of this research is to inform
practice. It includes the concept of motivation within it and defines it clearly as a precursor to
engagement. It also acknowledges that experiences of engagement happen within specific
educational frameworks and sociocultural contexts. Given that this study is seeking to
understand the engagement experiences of Emirati women within a federal university, this seems
to be a solid fit and as such is the definition used in this study.
Psychological perspectives
One of the earlier oft-cited works on the concept of engagement is by Fredricks,
Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004). Drawing together the multiple aspects that make up school
engagement they discuss three dimensions of engagement drawn from previous research
traditions: behavioural, affective or emotional, and cognitive (Fredricks et al., 2004). From the
behavioural perspective, engagement is usually demonstrated through observable conduct and
participation, for example, students complying with behavioural expectations and school norms
like attending class, obeying school rules, spending time on appropriate tasks, not being
disruptive, participating in academic or extracurricular activities and avoiding negative
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 28
behaviour such as skipping classes or acting out. The perspective of affective or emotional
engagement is concerned with students’ affective reactions to the school environment (teachers,
classmates, academics, and the institution). This could be based on the individual, for example, a
student feeling interested or bored by a particular activity, or it could be institutional in attention,
in relation to student feelings of belonging and relatedness to their school, teachers, and peers
(Lawson & Lawson, 2013). The third aspect, cognitive engagement, is concerned with students’
internal cognition regarding learning, their investing in their own learning, showing self-
regulation, being strategic in their approach to learning and possibly going beyond basic
expectations. As a general summary, the behavioural dimension is concerned primarily with
what students and institutions “do” in the learning environment; the cognitive aspect is
concerned with what students “think” about their learning; and the affective is linked to the
effects of what students “feel” about their learning. Each of these components has a rich research
history, although they are often studied independently and quantitatively (Harris, 2008).
The concept of effort is seen as having differing qualities in the behavioral and cognitive
perspectives, ranging from getting the work done (behavioural) to a full mastery of material
(cognitive). The quality that makes engagement valuable is that it draws together these individual
bodies of literature in an attempt to explain the facilitators of student success.
Other researchers have taken this base of behavioural, emotional, and cognitive aspects of
engagement, and offered further important constructs. Appleton, Christenson, Kim, and Reschly
(2006) proposed a taxonomy of four subtypes and indicators for engagement: academic (e.g.,
time on task, credits earned towards graduation), behavioural (e.g., attendance, voluntary
classroom participation, extracurricular participation), cognitive (e.g., self-regulation, personal
goals and autonomy), and psychological (e.g., feelings of belonging, relationships with peers and
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 29
teachers). They cautioned that most research has dealt only with the academic and behavioural
subtypes, and that finding a single indicator for each subtype is highly unlikely. Reeve and Tseng
(2011) discussed agentic engagement, which is “students’ constructive contribution to the flow
of the instruction they receive” (p. 258). Agentic engagement might be demonstrated by a variety
of methods including a student asking a question, offering an idea, stating a preference,
communicating a need or interest, or making their own contribution. Agentic engagement
emphasizes the importance of students’ proactive and intentional contributions to classroom
activities and how that engagement influences the teacher’s behaviour.
Disengagement perspectives
In higher education research, a different research thread has influenced the field of
engagement, examining what it deemed as the ultimate form of disengagement: dropping out of
university. The concepts of integration and involvement were first developed by Tinto (1975)
and Astin (1984, 1993, 1996) by studying students who withdrew from university. These ideas
have been the foundation of much of the current work in engagement in higher education.
Integration.
Integration is explained as the “extent to which students come to share the attitudes and
beliefs of their peers and faculty, and the extent to which students adhere to the structural rules
and requirements of the institution—the institutional culture” (Wolf-Wendel et al., 2009, p. 414).
This idea was first developed by Tinto (1975) to explain the process of a student voluntarily
withdrawing from an institution (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Tinto (1975) applied Durkheim's
theory of suicide to student dropouts. Individuals who are not sufficiently integrated in society
are at risk of suicide, and the parallel is that students not sufficiently integrated in universities are
at risk of dropping out. The central proposition of the model is the stronger a student’s academic
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 30
and social integration in the institution, the more committed they are to the institution, and the
more dedicated they are to graduating (Habley et al., 2012). In the revised version of his theory,
Tinto (1988) used the work of the Dutch anthropologist Arnold Van Gennep, who studied the
rites of passage in tribal societies as a lens through which to consider the longitudinal process of
student persistence. Tinto (1988) hypothesized that there is a conceptual similarity between a
person becoming a member of a wider community through tribal rites of passage, and a student
integrating into an institution, persisting, and graduating. These stages are separation, transition,
and incorporation. In the separation stage, a student entering college needs to, at some level,
disassociate with their prior community, namely high school and where they live, which may be
more or less challenging depending on the community's expectations of them. Students who do
not move to attend university and continue in their pre-university home and/or peer circles may
run the risk of not fully integrating with university life, particularly if their community is not
supportive. The second stage is aptly named transition. Students have separated from their past
circles, but they have “yet to acquire the norms and patterns of behaviour appropriate to
integration in the new communities of the college” (p. 444). The way individual students respond
to the pressures of transition are related to personality, personal coping strategies, educational
commitment and individual goals. The third stage is integration, when “the person now faces the
problem of finding and adapting norms appropriate to the new college setting and establishing
competent membership in the social and intellectual communities” (p. 446). Students who do not
work through all these stages are unlikely to feel a sense of belonging to the university and are
considered more likely to leave.
Tinto's (1975) theory has “near paradigmatic status in research on college student
departure” (Braxton, Sullivan, & Johnson, 1997, p. 108), but it is not without critique (Melguizo,
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 31
2011). One common critique of Tinto's theory is that it is not appropriate for the study of
minority students (Melguizo, 2011; Tierney 1992). Tierney (1992) commented: the idea that a
student must adapt and assimilate into the institution’s value structure is problematic, as it is a
misinterpretation of the cultural definition of a ritual and rite of passage. In traditional cultures, a
person does not choose to participate in a rite of passage; designed into the ritual is a pathway to
success for the preservation and maintenance of the culture (1992). He stated, Tinto “has
assumed that student departure is a universal concept rather than a cultural category developed
by the society that utilizes the ritual” (p. 610). Guiffrida (2006) suggested that identification of
cultural norms and motivational orientations of diverse groups of students is important and
recommends investigating relationships between these variables and student achievement and
persistence. This investigation would lead to a more nuanced understanding of the experience of
students from different cultural backgrounds. Melguizo (2011) questioned that Tinto’s theory
neglects the influence of factors external to the institution, is limited by loose definitions of the
constructs and lacks a reliable and valid instrument to measure academic and social integration.
Further, it has been unable to connect how social and academic integration affect persistence.
Braxton, Hirschy, and McClendon (2004) found there is only partial empirical support for
propositions in Tinto’s theory. They suggested the propositions that have empirical support
should be used as a base to revise it. Melguizo (2011) suggested that researchers should look
beyond Tinto’s theory to more inter-disciplinary approaches and that the dominance of
quantitative studies has been detrimental to the development of the understanding of persistence
and success in the field.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 32
Involvement.
Alexander Astin (1984) first proposed a theory of involvement, which he described
simply as “the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the
academic experience” (p. 518). The theory grew, like Tinto’s (1975), from examining students
who dropped out of university and discovering the factors that differentiated them from the
students who persisted. He found a relationship between almost all the factors of successful
outcomes and the idea of involvement. The theory examines the individual and the academic,
out-of-class, and extracurricular activities they decide to become involved in (Wolf-Wendel et
al., 2009). Through extensive longitudinal studies in the United States, measuring 57 forms of
involvement, the most powerful types of involvement for persistence were: academic
involvement, involvement with faculty, and involvement with student peer groups, with peer
group involvement being the strongest source of influence (Astin, 1996).
The work of Astin (1984) on involvement and Tinto (1975) on integration are
foundational to the field of engagement. Astin’s recognition that the student’s level of
involvement in and out of class and extracurricular activities as contributing to many positive
outcomes is important in understanding engagement. Tinto’s work with integration was one of
the first to recognize that students may voluntarily drop out because of issues influenced by the
institution, rather than individual characteristics such as financial status or academic ability. Both
researchers paved the way to view engagement as a multidimensional construct, encompassing
both the students and the institution; their ideas are evident in many consequent models.
Institutional perspectives
The multidimensional angle of engagement research indicates how the student and the
institution interact. This perspective on engagement proposed by Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges,
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 33
and Hayek (2007) is one of the most pervasive interpretations of engagement in the higher
education field. Kuh et al. (2007) described a broad model of what matters to student success,
with engagement at the centre. In this view, engagement is the interaction between student
behaviour and institutional conditions. The student behaviours include study habits, the amount
of time interacting meaningfully with faculty members, peer involvement, the amount of time
spent on educationally purposeful tasks, and student motivation. Institutional conditions include
factors such as the teaching and learning approaches used, academic support, the campus
environment, and the first-year experience. Students’ pre-college characteristics, which include
factors such as enrolment choices, academic preparation, family and peer support, motivation to
learn, and the students’ demographic characteristics, also play a role. Engagement represents
what Kuh et al. (2007) claimed are the areas that universities can do something about to support
(or deter) students’ eventual success in achieving grades, graduation, employment, or learning
outcomes.
The concept of student engagement has gained traction and visibility through the US-
based National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). Hundreds of institutions participate in
the survey annually as a way to measure what students do with their time while attending
university and what they gain from the experience (NSSE, n.d.), and is often used as a proxy
measure for university quality (Zepke, 2015a). The NSSE was based on research into best
practices in university education and developed by a team of researchers interested in student
success including George Kuh, Alexander Astin, Arthur Chickering, and others (Wolf-Wendel et
al., 2009). The survey comprises five benchmarks of best practice: (a) academic challenge, (b)
active and collaborative learning, (c) student-faculty interaction, (d) enriching educational
experiences, and (e) a supportive campus environment (Baron & Corbin, 2012). The NSSE has
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 34
been criticized regarding its usefulness for research because it was developed for institutional
improvement and comparison (Kahu, 2013). Indeed, Kahu stated, “Blending institutional
practices with student behaviour has resulted in a lack of clear distinction between the factors
that influence engagement, the measurement of engagement itself, and the consequences of
engagement” (p. 760). Zepke (2015b) warned that the results of the NSSE give an undue
indication of certainty and rationality to administrators on how to improve engagement; this can
lead to cultures of compliance with faculty. From the institutional perspective, the deliberate
focus on elements that the institution can control and change means that other important
variables (e.g., student expectations or emotions) are not given due weight. Although this
perspective is useful in institutional improvement initiatives, it is limiting in leading to a full
understanding the complete puzzle of student engagement.
Individual student-focused perspectives
Bryson and Hand (2007) suggested that engagement should be viewed as a continuum
from disengaged to engaged. On that continuum, they proposed a number of areas when a
student may experience different levels: on a task, in a class, in a program, or at a university. In
their case study of students in the UK, they found what they described as some disturbing
experiences of student alienation in their university experience. Students were viewing university
as a means to an end: to get a degree to get a job. This view led to their engagement being
primarily transactional and focused on achieving grades for tasks, courses, and programs, driving
their interest. What they did find from student reports is that when a teacher, or a team of
teachers, spent time developing relationships and trust, it could affect the students’ level of
engagement across tasks, courses, programs and their general experience of higher education.
They concluded by acknowledging that there may be institutional barriers affecting student
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 35
engagement that lie outside an individual faculty member’s circle of influence. They reminded
faculty that:
Sometimes our best and well-meant intentions are destroyed by not giving sufficient
attention to the issues that matter to students, e.g., poor relationships, or too much
prioritizing on aspects such as learning outcomes, which is key to quality audit but trivial
to the students. (Bryson & Hand, 2007, p. 360)
This perspective emphasizes the importance of engagement as a multifaceted concept, and that
by affecting levels of engagement at one level (e.g., a course), it can improve engagement in
other levels (e.g., a program) as well.
Leach and Zepke (2011) offered a conceptual organizer for student engagement, based on
a literature review and their own study of 72 students in relation to their perceptions of their
engagement in learning. They identified six perspectives on engagement evident in:
• Motivation and agency (engaged students are intrinsically motivated)
• Transactional engagement with teachers
• Transactional engagement with other students
• Institutional support (university environment is conducive to learning)
• Active citizenship (environment for challenging social beliefs and practices)
• Non-institutional support (support from family and friends to engage)
They argued that their organizer “offers a useful way of thinking about the complexities of
student engagement and that it could be used to inform, evaluate, and improve student
engagement in individual institutions” (p. 202). This perspective also offers active citizenship,
absent from most other models. The data from their student interviews was used to illustrate the
importance of interactions in engagement and divided into two threads: (a) engagement with
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 36
teachers, and (b) engagement with other students. This organizer suggested the importance of the
student’s context in the non-institutional supports category, but is weak in explaining how the
factors interact, and acknowledging the broader cultural or contextual factors outside the
classroom.
Another important contribution is from Solomonides, Reid, and Petocz (2012), with their
relational model of student engagement. Working from a phenomenographic study of university
students studying design, they placed the students’ “sense of self” at the centre of the model with
a “sense of being” and a “sense of transformation.” The sense of being acknowledges how the
students think of themselves (their confidence, imagination, happiness); the sense of
transformation is the means by which the self is growing (learning, understanding, and thinking).
The outer components consist of a sense of being a professional, sense of discipline, knowledge,
and a sense of creative engagement. This model offers another viewpoint for engagement
research to consider the emotional state of students in a deeper way than the previously
mentioned affective research in the psychological perspective. As shown by the use of “sense
of,” it encourages growth as the primary purpose of education and uses engagement of the whole
person as the key to success. Using this model for the design of programs would deliberately
foster the transformation and development of students’ selves in a discipline, beyond just
mastering the material. Of all of the perspectives presented, this one in particular seems most
beneficial in professional programs.
Holistic/sociocultural perspectives
Various authors called for more holistic views on student engagement. Given the wide
background and multifaceted nature of the concept, an integrated perspective would be helpful to
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 37
guide further research. In this area, authors are attempting to understand engagement as it fits
into what happens in the classroom, the institution, and the wider society and culture.
Lawson and Lawson (2013) viewed engagement as “the conceptual glue that connects
student agency (including students’ prior knowledge, experience, and interest at school, home,
and in the community) and its ecological influences (peers, family, and community) to the
organizational structures and cultures of school” (p. 433). In their view, engagement should not
be seen as something that a student has more or less of, but rather that engagement will vary in
type, form and degree across a number of settings and researchers should focus on finding the
objects (technology tools, peers, teachers, social settings) that drive students’ engagement
choices. This aligns with Astin’s (1984, 1993, 1996) theory of involvement but the authors do
not refer to the work, possibly because Astin’s work was with university students, and Lawson
and Lawson’s work comes from the school (K-12) perspective. Lawson and Lawson (2013)
encouraged engagement research to be “more nuanced and less formulaic” (p. 459) and to
consider the context and settings (classroom, school, or community) of the work.
Kahu’s (2012) holistic view brings together these threads of research and attempts to
detangle the precursors and consequences of engagement. The model has the individual student
at the centre, with their affect, cognition, and behaviour considered, drawing on Fredricks et al.’s
(2004) work. Two categories of precursors to engagement are presented, with two categories of
consequences of engagement. The first precursor is the psychosocial influences with the
relationship between the student (with their internal motivation, skills, identity, and self-efficacy)
and the university (with their faculty, staff, workloads and support structures) at the centre. The
second precursor is the structural influences of the student (with their background, family, and
support) and the university (with its culture, policies, curriculum, and assessment). These two
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 38
precursors interrelate to feed or impede the engagement of students. Next, two consequences of
engagement, proximal and distal, are explained. The proximal consequences of engagement are
academic (e.g., learning and achievement) and social (a sense of satisfaction or well-being). The
distal consequences are broader categorizations of academic work such as retention, success in
work, lifelong learning and social effects (personal growth and citizenship). The concept is
overlaid on the particular political and social environment. The attempt to show both antecedents
and consequences of engagement in one model, and to include the socio-cultural influences is a
powerful contribution to engagement research. The model states that the engagement
consequences are not the direct result of any one particular precursor; rather, it is a complex
interplay of factors that lead to consequences. The model includes elements from most
previously mentioned authors working in the field of engagement, and although it does not
necessarily explain the full picture of engagement causally, it offers great value in how to
detangle many aspects of the situation.
Student engagement summary
In this section, first I summarized various narrow and broad definitions of engagement
and discussed the tension between engagement and motivation as a research focus. Following
this, I selected the Bernard (2015) definition of engagement, which I used for the study. Several
theories of student engagement were examined, including the psychological perspective with the
behavioural, cognitive, and emotional components and the disengagement perspectives of Astin
and Tinto, providing a foundation for engagement research with the concepts of involvement and
integration. The institutional perspective, known to academics through the NSSE, deals with the
interaction between the student and the institution, with a sharp focus on what institutions can do
to improve student outcomes. Further, individual student-focused perspectives add the concept
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 39
that engagement is multifaceted and varies widely for individual students; by improving or
impeding engagement in one area (with a teacher, course or other students) it can improve or
impede engagement in other areas (a program). The holistic models add the concept that context
and setting, like the classroom, institution, or community can affect student engagement, and
research needs to be situated and less standardized. Kahu’s (2012) model attempted to position
the student at the centre and detangle the precursors and consequences of engagement.
Student engagement in UAE higher education is a small but growing field of research.
Next, studies that consider factors for student success and engagement in the UAE or other Gulf
countries will be reviewed.
Student Success and Engagement as Studied in the UAE and Gulf
The UAE and Gulf is a unique context for higher education so this section examines the
various ways in which student engagement has been studied in the region, from both teacher and
student perspectives. From the teaching perspective, investigations report on the challenges for
teachers (Lemke-Westcott & Johnson, 2013; Prowse & Goddard, 2010; Sonleitner & Khalifa,
2005), using different pedagogical approaches like active learning (Aboudan, 2011; Crabtree,
2010), deep learning (Burt, 2004; Russell, 2004), and the use of constructivism (Dahl, 2010).
The student perspective has been examined in regard to student satisfaction (Fernandes et al.,
2013; Wilkins et al., 2012), student perceptions of effective instructors (Saafin, 2008), academic
and social integration (Halawah, 2006), motivation (Aboudan, 2011; Engin & McKeown, 2012,
2017), transitions from high school (Hatherley-Greene, 2012a), and the experience of first-
generation women (Mahani, 2014). First, the teacher perspectives will be reviewed, followed by
the student perspectives.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 40
Teacher’s perspectives
Teaching in the Gulf context has its own challenges, as described by Smith (2006):
“Assumptions about university education are shaken and teachers find themselves having to
return to and question the fundamentals of their teaching, learning, and assessment practices” (p.
111). Instructors with experience teaching international students on traditional campuses often
find the international teaching situation quite different (Dunn & Wallace, 2006). Experience with
teaching in a traditional campus program, therefore, may not be sufficient for a faculty member
to be immediately effective at an international campus (Leask, 2008). Based on surveys and
focus groups of instructors who had recently started teaching in the UAE, Sonleitner and Khalifa
(2005) found that instructors encountered challenges, many related to cultural differences. They
noted differences in Gulf countries’ classroom culture (reluctance to speak individually in
classroom discussions), classroom behaviour (students coming and going from the classroom,
signals of understanding or misunderstanding), student preparation (coming to class with
readings not completed) and language proficiency, which in some cases led to instructor
frustration (Sonleitner & Khalifa, 2005). The instructors reported struggling to be creative in
modifying their teaching and learning strategies to meet the needs of the students. In terms of
transition, it has also been found that students studying at UAE federal institutions may
experience a form of culture shock as they adapt to the culture of the institution, even though
they are living in their home country (Hatherley-Greene, 2012a). Instructors and students both
need to be prepared for this transition.
Building on the theme of how instructors modify teaching and learning strategies, various
studies have discussed using different pedagogical approaches to engage UAE students. In one
study supporting the merits of active learning, information was collected based on feedback from
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 41
students and instructors. Four broad recommendations were made as follows: “including content
(examples or illustrations) that connects with Emiratis’ everyday lives; offering opportunities for
Emirati students to be actively involved in lessons; rewarding student involvement efforts and
engagement; and giving students greater responsibility in planning and executing the learning
process” (Aboudan, 2011, p. 133). In a comparative case study of the delivery of a business
program at a home campus in Canada and a branch campus in Qatar (another Gulf country),
considerable pedagogical modifications were observed in the branch campus setting. Instructors
modified their approach to time orientation, level of guidance given to students, male or female
interactions in group work, and discussion of controversial topics (Prowse & Goddard, 2010).
Concerns have been noted that the change from the teacher-centred pedagogies and
passive learning experienced by Emirati students in primary and secondary school can be
problematic when adopting active, deep learning and constructivist pedagogies. Russell (2004)
questioned the commonly mentioned assumption that students in the UAE prefer passive
learning activities based on memorization and rote learning, and found that students expressed an
interest in approaches that involved understanding, critical assessment, and relating information
to existing knowledge. Burt (2004) used a critical case study to investigate the experience of
three students in their first two courses at Zayed University. The transition from passive to active
learning strategies is initially quite problematic for students, but the author argues that through
multiple scaffolded exposures, the motivation and performance of the students exceeded their
high school achievements. In the same theme of scaffolded approaches, Lemke-Westcott and
Johnson (2013) showed a gap between the learning styles of Middle Eastern students and
Canadian faculty at the University of Calgary-Qatar. This gap affected both students’ learning
and teachers’ effectiveness. They recommended that faculty needed to understand that first-year
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 42
students in transnational universities may be completely unprepared for reflective and abstract
ways of thinking and that students need to be taught these skills throughout the program.
Crabtree (2010) reflected on a culturally responsive teaching practice in the UAE in the
development of an assignment when students did research on family members. By allowing
students to explore issues connected to their identity, family history, and culture, she found the
work of some students was highly reflective, allowing conversations that might otherwise have
been contentious if presented in a teacher-centred effort (effects of globalization and the reliance
of the UAE on expatriate labour, for example) and in many cases had students performing
beyond their usual ability particularly in composition, originality, and thoroughness.
Although various studies investigate ways in which instructors can engage students in
this context, one author in particular cautions against the use of constructivist pedagogies in the
UAE. In her book Failure to Thrive in Constructivism, Dahl (2010) offered a widespread critique
of why it is problematic to adopt constructivist principles in the UAE. One chapter describes the
hidden dynamics that may affect Emirati learners in Western classrooms. Dahl noted literacy
problems, family and tribal structures, and students’ primary and secondary school experiences
with pedagogical structures based on religious teachings that are not questioned, where
knowledge is absolute, and the teacher is the transmitter of that knowledge. She stated, “Learners
are compelled to cross a huge cultural, cognitive and epistemological gap before they can
function comfortably in a Western-style classroom” (Dahl, 2010, p. 53). As one of the several
examples of this divide, she discussed the challenge for students not only to master English, but
also the system of English writing. In Arabic, writing is right-to-left, and sentences are structured
very differently from English. For example, she reports, in Arabic sometimes spaces are placed
in the middle of words; it is common and reasonable to include many ideas in one sentence, or
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 43
not use a sentence structure at all. The logical style of presenting arguments in a linear manner,
preferred in Western curricula, is not used. Flourishes or inclusion of unrelated ideas and facts is
both commonplace and correct in Arabic. Considering the example of the correct way to
structure an argument and how it is tied to culture and language shows the divide that students
must overcome to meet the expectations of diverse instructors.
The literature on teacher perspectives of ways to improve student success and
engagement in the UAE and other Gulf countries spans a variety of approaches. Numerous issues
arise in this intercultural classroom space and instructors adopt a variety of tactics to meet the
challenge. Various pedagogical approaches and modifications are tried, with a theme emerging
of the need to take into account not only the students’ culture, but also the teacher-centred
primary and secondary schools from which they come. Scaffolding students’ exposure to learner-
centred approaches is vital.
Student perspectives
Student perspectives have been investigated in a variety of ways in the UAE. It is also
important to note that student perspectives are likely to vary within the UAE based on the type of
institution being a branch campus, foreign affiliate, or federal. Below is a review of studies
which investigate student satisfaction, student perception of effective instructors, academic and
social integration, motivation, transition from high school, and the experience of first-generation
women.
In a survey, Wilkins, Balakrishnan, and Huisman (2012) explored the perception of
students studying at UAE branch campuses. They questioned student satisfaction across a
number of variables, including “programme effectiveness, quality of lecturers and teaching,
student learning, assessment and feedback, learning resources, use of technology, facilities and
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 44
social life” (p. 543). The research team initially intended to send the survey out cross-
institutionally, but none of the institutions approached by the team agreed to participate. An
instructor of one course in a branch campus in the Emirate of Dubai agreed to distribute the
survey to their students, who then shared the survey through their Facebook pages with other
students they knew were also studying at a branch campus in the UAE. The students who
completed the survey were from various nationalities representative of branch campus
institutions. Results indicated that students were largely satisfied. It is interesting to note for this
study that the UAE students were the least satisfied group (although they were only 13% of the
respondents and the difference between groups was not significant). The categories that were
found to have the most negative responses related to students perceiving they were able to have
contact with faculty when needed; they received detailed, helpful feedback; faculty were
sympathetic if they had problems that affected their schoolwork; and that faculty did not involve
them more than their high school teachers did. Some negative responses occurred in terms of the
availability of leisure, social activities, and clubs or societies. It is important to emphasize that
the students were largely very satisfied with their educational experiences, and to balance it with
the rather unconventional sample of students.
Similarly, Fernandes, Ross, and Meraj (2013) collected data from students graduating
from a British university branch campus in the UAE regarding their satisfaction with their
program and university services and facilities. Although the sample is not broken down by
nationality, the response rate was 58% of 322 students. The largest finding of this study was that
teaching quality is of the utmost importance as “a significant level of satisfaction with overall
program quality can be attributed to whether students believe their teachers were good at
explaining things, were enthusiastic, made the subject interesting and were intellectually
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 45
stimulating” (p. 623). They were able to show that students are more likely to be loyal to a
program and recommend it to others if they are satisfied. Based on this argument, they concluded
that the university needs to invest in high-quality full-time teaching faculty in order to maintain
high student satisfaction levels, although it is common practice for contracts to be short-term.
This study, combined with Wilkins et al. (2012) showed that students’ perception of faculty
being available and helpful is essential to students’ satisfaction with their learning experience.
Saafin (2008) investigated what UAE students perceive as qualities of effective
instructors. In a qualitative study with freshman students in English at the private University of
Sharjah, the researcher found a variety of characteristics and practices mentioned by students. In
order of frequency, they were: treats students with respect, is flexible and willing to compromise,
is willing to help, is friendly, has a sense of humour, helps students understand, gives students
the chance to speak and ask questions, is dedicated, is fair, is a role model, is knowledgeable, is
patient, and smiles. This list is interesting because there is more emphasis on the interpersonal
skills of teachers, and students said they were more important than teachers’ instructional
strategies. The results are mirrored in a study by Raymond (2008), who investigated both faculty
and student perceptions of effective and ineffective teachers in an undisclosed UAE university.
Findings from that study dictated that personality elements were more important than ability. The
characteristics of effective teachers in Raymond’s (2008) study were: “is respectful, makes
classes interesting, is fair in evaluating, cares about students’ success, shows a love for their
subject, is friendly, encourages questions and discussion, is always well prepared and organized,
and makes difficult subjects easy to learn” (p. 2). This adds an interesting cultural aspect to the
discussion, suggesting that the teacher’s personal qualities are particularly important to UAE
students, although it is unknown how many of the students are Emirati.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 46
Engin and McKeown (2012) studied motivation and UAE students. In qualitative focus
groups of 12 students studying at a federal English-medium university in the UAE, they
investigated how students understood motivation, goals, success and failure, and how it affected
their experience at university. Although there were reports of intrinsic motivational reasons to
attend university (e.g., loving learning, education is important to me), most of the responses
reflected extrinsic motivations (to get a job, to be the first girl in my family, to please my
parents, help build the country, because of my family). The authors suggested that what is
particular about the students in this study is the importance of “family and society as a
motivator” (p. 8). Some motivators are in line with the political narrative of the importance of
Emiratization, which appears to be a driving factor in attending university.
In a detailed qualitative case study dissertation, Mahani (2014) undertook in-depth semi-
structured interviews with six first-generation Emirati post-secondary students studying at the
federal Higher College of Technology to understand the academic, social, familial, and financial
experiences of first-generation Emirati women students. The findings of the study give the most
comprehensive view of the female students’ experiences found in this review of the literature and
show the complexity of the student experience. In terms of the familial experiences, a
multifaceted picture is painted in which students receive verbal encouragement from parents,
although do not get much actual guidance. Conflicting expectations from family were also found,
when parents encouraged students to succeed in their studies but required them to conform to
familial or cultural norms that interfered with studying. For example, some students reported not
being allowed by their family to stay on campus after class to complete work on group projects
with peers. Meeting fellow students without a chaperone was an academic expectation, but it
conflicted with family cultural values. Other students were clearly told by their parents that
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 47
although they could pursue a degree, they would not be allowed to work in the future. This again
is an example of an academic program assumption (that a degree is sought in preparation for
work) that conflicted with family cultural values. In terms of financial experiences, this study
revealed a new finding particular to this population. Unlike most first-generation students
reported on in the literature on student success, these students did not experience financial
difficulties and were not motivated to complete their studies to support their families financially.
The UAE pays tuition and material costs for Emirati students, so this study points to different
motivations and experiences for this population when compared with first-generation students
elsewhere. With regard to the academic experience of students, most of the students reported
entering the institution feeling unprepared because of their low level of English and were
confused and challenged. This situation is interesting, because these students were enrolled in a
program designed to teach English and academic skills before starting academic programs, yet
they still felt unprepared. Students also said they felt very uncomfortable approaching instructors
for support or assistance. One student reported that she had never had the courage to approach an
instructor for individual help in her academic career (including elementary school). This finding
points to a serious issue in student-faculty contact and implies that the gap between students and
instructors can be very wide, with implications for aspects of engagement. Unsurprisingly,
students surrounded by Western expatriates in teaching and administrative positions reported that
they felt socially foreign in the institution and were not sure they belonged. It was clearly a very
different experience when compared to their high schools, where the teachers and administrators
were primarily Arab expatriates. In terms of peer-socialization, students reported difficulty
making friends and felt lonely and isolated. Most students said they did not attend events or
participate in extra-curricular activities. The social findings have important implications when
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 48
related to the literature (Astin, 1984; Tinto, 1975, 1988) which emphasized the importance of
social integration in student persistence.
In another dissertation, Hatherley-Green (2012a), studied the experience of male students
starting in the bridge program at the federal Higher Colleges of Technology in Fujarah, one of
the seven emirates that make up the UAE. A combination of research methods was employed,
including surveys, observations, case studies, interviews, journals, student narratives, and focus
groups. By these methods, he explained the varied “transition experiences as young male Emirati
school-leavers move from their pre-dominantly Arabic life-world associated with their families
and schooling to the predominantly Western culture found in higher education” (p. ii). In looking
at the characteristics that the young men bring to the educational environment through surveys,
he measured “mental toughness” and found students lacking in characteristics such as resilience,
challenge, persistence, commitment, and confidence. These characteristics are tied to self-esteem
and lead to students’ perception that they are likely to fail. Combined with this finding,
Hatherley-Green found that parents were often ambiguous about their son’s education and
encouraged them rather to leave school and seek full-time employment in the public sector.
Without family encouragement, a successful transition into the institution became particularly
challenging. In looking at the influence of faculty, Hatherley-Green found the most positive
student evaluation of instructors came from a group termed “warm demanders.” A warm
demander made a point of first developing a rapport with students by showing interest and a
willingness to understand their lives and experiences outside school. Only after that rapport had
been established would the instructor set and hold high levels of expectation for academic
achievement and classroom behaviour. Through focus groups with students, the transition
experience was clarified as one that requires several integration processes: “after the initial
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 49
cultural, linguistic, and cognitive shock experienced in the first few weeks . . . the students ‘got
used to college’ due to bonding within the class, bonding with a teacher, and bonding with the
new college culture” (p. 287). The students who were not able to make this transition were the
most likely to leave the institution. The highest levels of attrition in this institution were from the
lowest level English classes. The researcher suggests that the reason is that the “border crossing
experience” between the culture of their home lives and the culture of the college is such a wide
gap that they were unable to cope. This study examined the experiences of men but the
researcher interviewed the program chairs of the female programs in the same institution to see if
they believed that the female students experienced similar issues. The reports stated that the
issues were not as pronounced in the female program, perhaps because of different societal
expectations placed on women or their different educational experiences.
In general, it appears that students in university educational settings in the UAE are
largely satisfied with their experience, although the wide variety of models of universities in the
UAE can make it challenging to disentangle factors that relate to female Emirati students. Areas
for improvement involved being able to make a connection with their instructors (both having
the courage to, and making sure faculty were available) and having faculty be helpful,
enthusiastic, and understand problems they had outside school. The personal characteristics of
instructors were particularly important in student perception of effective instructors, with
interpersonal qualities outweighing instructional techniques. Academic integration, faculty
concern, and informal faculty relationships were connected to students’ intellectual and personal
development. UAE students were found to be extrinsically motivated, and a primary motivator
was family and society. The tensions which students must navigate between their culture and the
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 50
expectations of educational institutions are shown, and the necessary social transitions for
students to feel a sense of belonging in institutions were particularly challenging.
Chapter Summary
The literature review used various constructs and prior research as a basis to explore the
research questions of the current study. First, I examined the education context of the UAE. Then
I investigated the construct of culture, paying attention to the terminology (multicultural,
culturally inclusive, cross-cultural and intercultural) and choosing the term intercultural to
describe the context. Third, I conducted a survey of the definition of student engagement in the
literature, and the development of various perspectives on the concept. I selected the Bernard
(2015) definition, seeing engagement as a positive behavioural, cognitive, and affective state that
is iterative, and increasing the relevance of the educational context. I then reviewed a broad
selection of literature on engagement from different perspectives: psychological, disengagement,
institutional, student-focused and holistic. Finally, a review of research studies related to student
success and engagement in the UAE and other Gulf countries revealed teacher and student
perspectives and indicated tensions both academic and social. At this point, no studies have
investigated the personal and social factors that Emirati female students perceive are the most
supportive or inhibiting of their engagement in their program of study, so it will be a valuable
addition to the literature and stakeholders at PFU.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 51
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
The purpose of this research was to investigate the personal and social factors that female
students thought influenced their engagement with learning at PFU. I explored the way
participants defined engagement to see how it aligned with common perspectives in the literature
and looked for factors particular to participants’ experience. I investigated what participants said
were the factors that (a) were the most supportive of engagement in learning their program of
study, and (b) were barriers to their engagement. The post-secondary program studied is operated
in and has a primary audience of one culture, but is accredited by systems from another culture,
and the teachers and administration are from many cultures. The research setting was distinct
from many other studies in the area of student engagement by virtue of its physical and cultural
location. Usually, in the setting of other engagement studies the majority of primary stakeholders
(students, teachers, administration, and accreditation bodies) all operate in one dominant culture.
The literature investigating engagement in the federal UAE university setting is limited;
therefore, the aim of this study was to explore (a) female students’ perception of the factors they
considered most crucial to helping or hindering their engagement in learning, and (b) what
supports they wished they had. The results will be shared with stakeholders including program
designers, instructors, administrators, and policy makers in the context, and can be used to
influence future changes in practice.
The guiding question for the research was: What factors do female Emirati students
perceive to affect their engagement with learning in their undergraduate degree program? The
study addressed both personal and social factors that may be connected to the broader cultural
context. Sub-questions include:
• How do research participants define engagement in learning?
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 52
• What personal and social factors do students perceive to support their engagement with
learning?
• What personal and social factors do students perceive as barriers to their engagement
with learning?
• What do research participants wish for that would support them to be more engaged with
learning in the future?
In this chapter, I explore the research paradigm and methodology chosen to answer these
research questions and provide a rationale for the decision. The methodology will be described
and reviewed, followed by a discussion of its suitability and use in an educational environment.
Finally, I explain the implementation of the methods employed in this study. I describe the
research population and the recruitment procedures and criteria for inclusion or exclusion in the
study. The data collection methods will be discussed, as well as the data analysis procedures. The
chapter concludes with a discussion of trustworthiness, a subjectivity statement, ethical
considerations and the limitations and delimitations of the study.
Research Paradigm
The paradigm beliefs held by a researcher determine the methodological approach and
decisions taken in their study. Therefore, it is important for educational researchers to respond to
questions about ontology and epistemology (Cousin, 2009). Waring (2017) discussed ontology
(the nature of reality) through a useful continuum with realism on one side, and constructivism
on the other. Realism means that there is one singular and objective reality that exists even if it is
not perceived by any individuals; the constructivist side acknowledges multiple realities, and
they are constructed by individuals. Epistemology is concerned with the question of how realities
can be either captured or known. Waring (2017) advanced the continuum metaphor with the
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 53
continuum of epistemology being positivism (on the same side as realism) and interpretivism
(aligned with constructivism). Positivist epistemology argues that knowledge of the world is
“findable” by objective observation or measurement, whereas interpretivism believes that
“accounts and observations of the world provide indirect indications of phenomena, and thus
knowledge is developed through a process of interpretation” (p. 16). For the purpose of this
research study, I hold a constructivist, relativist ontology and believe there are “local and specific
constructed realities” (Lincoln & Guba, 2000, p. 165) which are pivotal in answering the
research question. Further, I approach this study with an interpretivist epistemology.
This constructivist, interpretivist philosophical underpinning leads to the research
approach. Mackenzie (2006) stated, “The most common definitions suggest that methodology is
the overall approach to research linked to the paradigm or theoretical framework while the
method refers to systematic modes, procedures or tools used for collection and analysis of data”
(p. 4). A qualitative strategy, with an “emphasis on experience, understanding, and meaning-
making” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 21) is aligned with the interpretivist standpoint and well
suited to the research question on student perceptions and experiences. Qualitative research
strategies tend to have similar major characteristics, including “a focus on understanding the
meaning of experience, the researcher is the primary instrument in data collection and analysis,
the process is inductive, and rich description characterizes the end product” (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016, p. 21).
The research question examines participants’ perceptions in a certain context to which
previous engagement research may or may not apply. It is important, therefore, that the research
approach emphasizes the participants’ perceptions. Further, the context is a second-language,
intercultural environment in which it is important to ensure that the participants are given the
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 54
opportunity to explain their understanding of the research topic and what they find important in
their own words, without being prompted with factors perceived to be important by others. For
these reasons, I have selected a qualitative Enhanced Critical Incident Technique (ECIT) as the
approach for this study, linked to the constructivist, interpretivist paradigm.
Origins of CIT
Kain (2004) stated that a disadvantage of using CIT is “the technique has not broken into
the ranks of high-status research practices; it is unfamiliar to most readers, except in industrial
and organizational psychology” (p. 78). With this disadvantage in mind, I assume the reader may
not be familiar with ECIT and as such I will give an overview of the CIT, its origins, its use in
different paradigms before discussing the suitability of it for this study.
A critical incident study involves identifying incidents related to a topic of interest which
are perceived as helping or hindering for some reason. These incidents are then analyzed, and
commonalities of the incidents are reported to reveal what impedes or supports the topic. The
studies vary quite widely in their subject of interest, how incidents are identified and by whom,
their adherence to the same process, and their philosophical underpinnings. In the seminal piece
first describing critical incident technique, Flanagan (1954) explained CIT as:
A set of procedures for collecting direct observations of human behaviour in such a way
as to facilitate their potential usefulness in solving practical problems and developing
broad psychological principles. The critical incident technique outlines procedures for
collecting observed incidents having special significance and meeting systematically
defined criteria. (p. 327)
Further, Flanagan (1954) set out five major steps in a CIT study as:
1. Decide on the general aims of the study
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 55
2. Make plans and set specifications
3. Collect data
4. Analyze data
5. Interpret data and report results. (pp. 336-346)
Flanagan noted that the steps are not rigid. “Rather it should be thought of as a flexible set of
principles which must be modified and adapted to meet the specific situation at hand” (p. 335).
Perhaps at least partially because of the name and the term “technique,” CIT is
confusingly sometimes used as a methodology, sometimes as a data collection method, and
sometimes as an undeclared mix somewhere in between, leaving the reader confused as to which
parts of Flanagan’s approach have been followed. Researchers will often diverge entirely from
Flanagan’s five-step process but will claim to have used CIT because they have structured the
data collection interview or survey around participants describing critical incidents. For example,
they might use critical incidents as a data collection method, but then use grounded theory to
guide the data analysis (Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2011).
CIT in Different Research Paradigms
CIT is used in a number of research paradigms, so for clarity I will follow the thread of
how the chosen constructivist, interpretivist paradigm affects the use. Chell (2004b) noted,
“[CIT] nicely cuts across the (simplistic) notion that quantitative methods assume positivism
while qualitative methods make non-positivistic assumptions. The fact is that CIT may be used
within either paradigm!” (p. 51). CIT has undeniably positivistic roots, where Flanagan was
aiming to attain scientific credibility by having well-trained, objective researcher observer and
identify the factors that were critical for success in areas like combat leadership, why pilots
experienced vertigo, and characteristics essential for job success (Flanagan, 1954). The results of
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 56
a CIT study would provide “a relatively objective and factual definition” (p. 328) of particular
human behaviours. These statements reflected the positivist assumption of a singular objective
reality, which would be knowable through direct, objective observation. Chell (2004) remarked
that Flanagan made further assumptions: (a) that the purpose of an activity could be determined;
(b) that standards for effective or ineffective performance could be identified; and (c) that
observers would be able to recognize incidents when this standard was achieved. Considering
CIT from a constructivist perspective, these assumptions need to be questioned.
Many key shifts have occurred since Flanagan’s original procedures, and CIT is now
used quite frequently in an interpretive paradigm in a wide variety of fields. From this
perspective, it became more common for participants to self-report what is critical to them in an
experience, rather than to have the identification done by an observer. This shift underpinned
using CIT to study an ever-widening variety of psychological constructs and experiences.
Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson, and Maglio (2005) reported that the focus of CIT studies is very
adaptable, and:
can range from studying effective and ineffective ways of doing something, to looking at
helping and hindering factors, collecting functional or behavioural descriptions of events
or problems, examining successes and failures, or determining characteristics that are
critical to important aspects of an activity or event. (p. 476)
Butterfield et al. (2009) developed an enhanced version of CIT called Enhanced Critical Incident
Technique (ECIT) after having noted that trustworthiness needed to be established particularly
with the focus on participant perceptions of an experience rather than direct observation. They
suggested nine credibility checks set out as additions to the final step of the CIT interpreting and
reporting. Their suggested credibility checks were: (a) audio-recording interviews, (b) interview
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 57
fidelity, (c) independent extraction of critical incidents and wish list items, (d) exhaustiveness,
(e) participation rates, (f) placing incidents into categories by an independent judge, (g) cross-
checking by participants, (h) expert opinions, and (i) theoretical agreement.
CIT has been broadly applied to different fields including counselling psychology
(Woolsey, 1986), nursing (Sharoff, 2008), organizational psychology (Chell, 2004b), and
customer service industries (Gremler, 2004). Examples of CIT being used in education occur in
many cases attempting to understand the perceptions and experiences of students, which parallels
the aims of this study. CIT has been used to understand the subjective cross-cultural transition
experiences of post-secondary students travelling abroad for coursework; for example, attending
courses in the Semester at Sea project (Pedersen, 1995), and Canadian students attending a
seminar in Vietnam (Arthur, 2001). CIT has been used to explain student perceptions of
excellence in teaching (Khandelwal, 2009; Voss, 2009), meaningful interactions between
students and faculty (Schwartz & Holloway, 2014), and interprofessional interactions and skills
in physiotherapy education clinical sites (Robson & Kitchen, 2007). Other studies have used CIT
to understand student satisfaction with higher educational experiences (Douglas et al., 2015;
Menges & Kulieke, 1984), alignment of values of faculty, administration, and students (Telford
& Masson, 2005), as an alternative method to collect student evaluations of teaching (Douglas et
al., 2009), and what helps or hinders hopefulness for students who have experienced barriers (B.
Smith et al., 2014). International students have also been the focus of CIT studies in education,
including cross-cultural transitions of international students in Canada (Moores & Popadiuk,
2011), and how international students use online information resources (Hughes, 2012). Further,
ethical dilemmas for teachers have been investigated (Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2011). Critical
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 58
incidents have also been used in education as reflective tools for examining formative learning
and classroom experiences of students and teachers (Brookfield, 1998).
Suitability of ECIT to This Study
This study used ECIT in a constructivist theoretical framework, following the five-step
approach outlined by Flanagan, and the enhanced credibility checks proposed by Butterfield
(2005). Further, I used the data analysis procedures for critical incident studies described by
Holloway and Schwartz (2014).
From a relativist and subjectivist stance, I do not claim to be an objective observer and
analyst in search of a singular truth about an experience, but rather an “author of a reconstruction
of meaning” (Mills et al., 2008, p. 26). Viewing ECIT from this perspective, as in this study, the
authority for describing the purpose of an activity and the decision as to what is effective or
ineffective performance is removed from the observer (as Flanagan suggested) to the research
participant. In essence, “critical incidents are not observed, because viewing from the outside
cannot reveal the criticalness of an incident. Critical incidents are created by the person to whom
they are critical” (Kain, 2004, p. 81). Research participants commonly explain their experience
of incidents through surveys or interviews. The research participants’ identification and self-
reported examples of meaningful experiences and events in their own engagement in learning
were at the core of my study. Given the language challenges and cultural setting for this research,
this approach allowed the participants’ voice to be heard.
ECIT was suitable for this study for various reasons. Engagement experiences vary in
type, form, and degree across settings (Lawson & Lawson, 2013) and in order to understand the
factors that drive students’ engagement choices, the ECIT approach honoured the student
perception of which experiences were meaningful for them to engage in learning (Holloway &
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 59
Schwartz, 2014). ECIT directly aligned with the constructivist theoretical framework of this
study because in ECIT, “the researcher began with the assumption that there is a discrete
knowledge or experience possessed by these individuals that can be elicited through self-
reflection of successful strategies used” (Butterfield et al., 2009, p. 268). I have assumed that (a)
participants are the best source to identify a critical incident for them; and (b) there are
commonalities in the experience of being engaged or disengaged in learning by Emirati female
students. I believed I could understand the perspectives of these students by eliciting thick
descriptions of incidents they selected as meaningful and connected to their engagement and
disengagement in learning and having them describe which aspects they found important. ECIT
is exploratory and is a systematic approach for understanding the subjective experience of the
participants through their contextual examples.
Turning briefly to research design, using the focused interview as the data collection
approach allowed for a purposeful discussion about the issues under investigation. The
participant maintained control because they chose which incidents were discussed rather than
having the researcher supply them, and the perspective of the participant was at the centre of the
investigation (Chell, 2004a). This control was particularly important in this intercultural setting,
to ensure the point of view of the participant was elicited. By way of the data analysis
procedures, the commonalities of meanings of the factors and experiences that participants
valued were inductively analysed to build a new understanding of what helped and hindered in
their experience. ECIT using self-reporting to offer a powerful way for participants to guide the
interview and uncover their perspectives about what was helpful and hindering in their
engagement in learning and consequently build a new understanding.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 60
ECIT presents some disadvantages to the study as well. Because it can be somewhat
challenging to place firmly in either the qualitative or quantitative tradition (Chell, 2004b), many
CIT studies report descriptive statistics such as percentages or counts to summarize the number
of incidents relating to a category (Andersson & Nilsson, 1964; Arthur, 2001). Kain (2004)
noted, however, that in regard to CIT:
The persuasiveness of such research is not based on inferential statistics . . . the
persuasiveness of critical incident research arises from a careful explanation of the
process followed and attention to rich descriptive detail, providing the reader with a basis
to judge the applicability of the research. (p. 78)
It was important, therefore, to be mindful in the reporting of results to describe in detail the
procedures used to reach the results so the reader can make their own judgment. There was a risk
in relying on the memories of participants, which may be distorted (Kain, 2004). However, by
ensuring that adequate details of the incident were collected (e.g., the incident, its importance to
the participant, and an example), this risk was mitigated. The process of coding and analyzing
data can be very time-consuming (Chell, 2004), and many credibility checks were needed
(Butterfield et al., 2009). Finally, confidentiality issues might arise if participants named other
people in their description of incidents, or used terms like “mother” or “father” (Britten et al.,
2012) so a strict procedure was used to de-identify the transcripts. Although there are
disadvantages to the approach, the issues were managed.
In summary, CIT has been shown to be a flexible approach that has expanded in use in
qualitative research. CIT, despite not having “broken into the ranks of high-status research
practices” (Kain 2004, p. 78), has a history of use in education and cultural research. Using a
constructivist approach, I was not searching for a singular truth about the participants’
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 61
experience. The participants, in turn, were given full authority to describe the purpose and
importance of an activity and why they ascribed meaning to it. The nine credibility checks of
ECIT strengthened the trustworthiness of the results. Although there are some disadvantages in
ECIT, in general it was suitable for this study’s constructivist framework and exploratory nature.
Methods
In this section, I describe the methods I applied in this research study. The research
population is explained, as well as the criteria used for participant inclusion or exclusion in the
study. I detail the data collection methods as well as the data analysis procedures. Finally, I
discuss how trustworthiness was established, include a researcher subjectivity statement, ethical
considerations, and study limitations.
Research population
The research population selected for this study involved female students in their
undergraduate program of study at PFU. The study chose female students, as the gender-
segregated female undergraduate programs represent a majority of the total student population.
As the female population was the largest, understanding these students’ experiences would have
a broader impact on future interventions by instructors and administrators. There is precedence
for limiting educational research studies at UAE educational institutions to one gender in other
recent studies (Hatherley-Greene, 2012a; Mahani, 2014; Mahani & Molki, 2011); therefore, I
chose to study female students.
The decision to focus on female students in their undergraduate program, but not in any
one program, was made for several reasons. First, I believed that by looking at many programs,
students would have a broader set of experiences to draw from when considering what had
helped and hindered them in their engagement. It was also a particular perspective for studying
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 62
student experiences at UAE educational studies, as the literature has focused on students
studying English (Engin & McKeown, 2012, 2017; Hatherley-Greene, 2012a), freshman and
first-year (Adam, 2019; Halawah, 2006; Saafin, 2008), first-generation students (Mahani, 2014),
or comparing English and degree program experiences (Raymond, 2008).
Inclusion and exclusion criteria. In order to be included in the study, students needed to
be female undergraduate students in a baccalaureate program at PFU in the Spring 2017
semester. They needed to be willing to discuss their experiences and perceived helping and
hindering critical incidents concerning their engagement in learning at PFU both in detail and in
English. Participants needed to be available for two interviews (a primary data collection in-
person interview, and a participant cross-check interview by phone) at a time agreeable to both
the participant and me. Participants also needed to agree to the terms in the consent form and
agree to sign it. Woolsey (1986) stated that a “sample must not consist of persons selected for
characteristics that are related in a systematic way to the activity being studied” (p. 245). For this
reason, students did not need to self-identify as being either academically successful or engaged
in order to participate in the study, although this may have occurred because they were interested
in the topic. Participants were excluded from the study if they were current or past students in
classes I taught or had participated in focus groups or interviews related to my work as a faculty
member at PFU, as they may not have felt comfortable to explore incidents related to
experiences with me in a power position.
Participant recruitment. Participants were recruited by various methods. An email
announcement was included in a regular newsletter sent to all female students, and posters were
displayed on notice boards describing the study. I contacted one faculty member in each of
PFU’s colleges and asked to give a short presentation in their classes. Although I sent a request
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 63
to a faculty member in each college, they were not all able to accommodate me. Overall, I did 10
recruitment presentations in six colleges (two colleges, were not represented because of time
availability for recruitment presentations). Potential participants were given an email address and
a mobile phone number to contact me. After receiving a statement of interest in participation, I
confirmed that the participant met the inclusion criteria and suggested possible time slots in the
upcoming week. Upon confirmation of a time, I sent a simplified version of the interview
questions, asking participants to come to the interview with an idea in mind about one engaging
and one disengaging learning experience from their undergraduate experience. Moores and
Popadiuk (2011) prepped interviewees in a similar way, asking them to think about critical
incidents before their interview. Participants’ interviews were scheduled in the order in which
they confirmed interest. Participants were given a flyer after their interview, which I encouraged
them to give to other female students they thought might be interested.
When using ECIT, the number of participants used in the study “is determined on the
basis of number of critical incidents and not number of people” (Woolsey, 1986, p. 246).
Butterfield et al. (2009) recommended keeping a running tally sheet of all interviews to track the
emergence of new categories and suggested that data collection interviews should continue until
exhaustiveness is reached, meaning no new categories emerged. However, in practice although I
attempted to follow this procedure, the data categories were not immediately clear as I finished
interviewing participants. As interviews progressed to about the 16th interview I was starting to
hear repetition. I decided that I would complete the interviews with the five remaining
participants that had booked interviews from the initial recruitment campaign. Then during the
data analysis, I kept the tally up to date, and found that no new categories emerged after the 15th
interview, confirming that exhaustiveness had been reached.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 64
Data collection methods
Relating to the research question and the aim of this study to understand the experience
from the female students’ perspective, I asked the participants to self-report their experiences of
being engaged or disengaged in learning through interviews. The data collection methods and
interview guide were based on the work and suggestions described by Butterfield et al. (2009).
In total, I interviewed 21 participants. In the following section, I explain the main data
collection interviews and the participant cross-check interviews. The interview guides I
developed and used are outlined in Appendix 2.
Main data collection interview.
In order to test the interview guide clarity and provide a better time estimate, I conducted
pilot interviews with two female students not included in the study. I reviewed the second pilot
interview with my supervisor at the time, and we made some minor modifications to the
questions.
I did the main data collection interview face-to-face in a quiet, private location on Dubai
campus. Each interview took approximately 1 hour. The interviews were audio-recorded on a
digital recorder and transcribed afterward. I used the interview guide (see Appendix 2) to
conduct the interview and took short notes. I also kept a brief interview diary, discussed in more
detail in the subjectivity statement.
As each participant arrived at the interview location, I spent a moment or two informally
welcoming them and getting them settled in the room. I anticipated that many participants had
never been interviewed for a research project before, so before the formal interview I casually
asked if they had been a participant in a research study. In many cases they had not, so I gave a
simple verbal overview of the process and offered encouragement if they mentioned they were
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 65
nervous or this was a new experience. I had participants sign the consent form (detailed
information in the Ethical Considerations section, and Appendix 1), and then had them fill in a
contact information sheet with their preferred methods to be reached for the follow-up interview.
Finally, I started the audio recording and the formal interview began.
The main data collection interview was divided into two parts: (a) contextual questions,
and (b) critical incident questions. I used the contextual questions to help orient the participant to
the research topic and put them at ease. I asked participants to explain where they were in their
program of study, what being engaged as a student meant to them, and whether they had had a
chance to think about a time they were engaged and disengaged with learning (from the
interview confirmation email).
Then I started the critical incident questions, which were divided into three main sections.
In the first section I asked participants to recount a time when they were particularly engaged
with learning; in the second I asked about a time when they were particularly disengaged with
learning; in the final section I asked the participants to suggest a wish list in which they
considered what they might advise a future teacher how to help them engage in learning.
Between each section in the interview, I used the listening method (Burns, 2014; Moran, 2014)
when I summarized and paraphrased helping and hindering factors, and repeated it to the
research participant for clarification.
The interviews varied in how they unfolded. As mentioned earlier, most students at the
institution speak Arabic as their first language, so although it was not asked as a part of the
protocol, it is likely that English was a second or other language. I was conscious of rewording
or adding synonym statements in question stems if needed. Participants made frequent errors in
word order, grammar, and pronunciation that I did not immediately stop to check but clarified
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 66
with them if the meaning was not clear from the context. In some interviews, more prompting
with question stems was needed to encourage participants to explain complete details. Many
participants expressed frustration that they struggled to find the words in English to explain what
they meant. Throughout the interview if a participant paused but showed an emotional
expression, I checked in by saying, “Your body language looks like you’re feeling _____ about
that, is that correct?” to make sure it was captured and to prompt them to speak more about it.
On some occasions a participant was unable to tell me about an experience that was
specific enough for the study. For a self-reported incident to be considered complete for
inclusion in an ECIT study, it needs to have a sufficiently high level of detail (Butterfield et al.,
2005). Therefore, it was important that participants responded with details to questions about
their experience before, during, and after their incident. I also needed to hear specific aspects
about the personal and social factors related to the incident.
In some interviews, before completing the detailed explanation of a particular incident,
the participant would go off track and start to describe a different incident. Given the limited
time of the interview, I aimed to collect only the details of one engaged and one disengaged
incident. So in these cases when the participant started to shift to a different incident, I redirected
them to their original incident topic and asked them to clarify the details. In some cases,
however, participants did not follow redirection to the original incident or were unable to explain
the details of the original incident. This meant that in some interviews several “incident ideas”
were mentioned by the participant but lacking enough detail to be considered complete for the
study. In self-report CIT studies, this lack of detail means that the incident data is not complete
and thus cannot be used in the data analysis. In the cases when the details of an incident were
unclear, I excluded interview data from the data analysis. Further, if an interview had a complete
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 67
incident, as well as some extra “incident ideas,” I kept the focus of the data analysis on the
complete incidents.
As often occurs in CIT interviews, some participants simply needed to be prompted to
discuss their engagement or disengagement, and very little follow-up questioning was required.
For other participants, more prompting was required in order to recollect the appropriate details.
As I had given a short prompt of the interview questions to participants by email before the
interview, some participants came in prepared, and started to discuss their incident before the
formal interview even began (the moment they walked into the interview room before consent
was discussed or signed). I suspect this was related to inexperience with being a research
participant in an interview or nervousness. For these participants, I thanked them for their
enthusiasm and redirected them to ensure the proper consent and interview protocol with
recording was followed.
Participant cross-check interview.
To boost the integrity of my interpretation, I went back to the participants who were
included in the data analysis for a second short interview to allow them to review my initial
analysis and make any corrections or additions. First, I sent the individual participants a
summary of the critical incidents that I had extracted from their interview, as well as a list of the
tentative themes into which I had placed the participant’s incidents. I then requested a short 5-to
10-minute phone interview with the participants to have them check that I had correctly extracted
their incident items. This opportunity allowed them to offer feedback on the themes I had
assigned and follow up on any missing details as per the interview guide in Appendix 2. The
interview was not audio-recorded and was not transcribed, but I took notes. Overall, very few
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 68
changes were made. Two participants did not respond to the request and a reminder (Badria and
Khadija), but the others all did. Minimal changes were made based on the cross-check.
Data analysis
In line with data analysis procedures for critical incident studies described by Holloway
and Schwartz (2014), I engaged in three phases in the data analysis:
1. Characterization of incidents
2. Emergent thematic coding of incidents
3. Cross-comparison of incidents into antecedents, incidents and impacts
Phase 1 of my analysis had three main goals: (a) to confirm that the incidents collected were
related to the research question, (b) to gain an overall understanding of the data, and (c) to
describe the sample so that others could make judgements about transferability. First, I read
through all the transcripts of the 21 interviews and identified the reported incidents relating to the
research question. Although it may seem obvious that responses would relate to the research
questions, Holloway and Schwartz (2014) mentioned it is possible some may not. In the two
cases where participants did not respond with detailed incidents, they were excluded at this point.
Only incidents that included a detailed recounting of times when students perceived they were
engaged or disengaged with learning with explanations of the helping and hindering factors from
their perspective were further analyzed. Next, to gain an understanding of the data, I reviewed all
the interview transcripts looking for characteristics that described the incidents (e.g., type,
setting, or focus). As the final step of the first phase, I calculated frequencies of the
characteristics of the incidents.
In phase two, I undertook the thematic coding of incidents. I used an emergent coding
approach, when I assigned descriptive codes directly from the interview data. I recorded the
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 69
codes as nodes in an NVivo database. Butterfield et al. (2009) explained I should begin with
three interviews and mark each transcript as per the system. As it is up to the researcher “to
discern any patterns, themes, similarities, or differences among the incidents” (p. 272) I grouped
the codes conceptually to inductively create categories that emerged from the data for the first
three interviews. I continued with the coding with a second batch of three transcripts, and then
made modifications to the category structure. I repeated working in batches until completing this
for all 19 transcripts, and then finally, the categories were grouped into themes through an
iterative process. Holloway and Schwartz (2014) stated that in a gradual process of sorting down
to a smaller group of themes, there “are patterns of description that emerge from the meanings
that participants attach to their experiences. Themes help researchers begin to gain a conceptual
understanding of how participants construct an understanding of their experiences” (p. 9). I used
this information for the participant cross-check interview and modified the themes.
Often in the final phase data analysis in CIT, incidents are organized in three stages: (a)
antecedents (things that happened before the incident), (b) the incident itself, and (c) impacts
(events or thoughts that happened after or because of the incident). The incidents are compared
to the major themes to find relevant patterns. For many CIT studies, the incident may be an event
that has a very clear before and after, for example, accessing psychological services (Burns,
2014). Although I prompted participants in their interview to explain experiences that happened
before and after their incident, given the complexity of the way engagement in learning is
experienced, most were not able to describe it in such a lock-step fashion. Participants were able
to give a full picture of their experience but they were not always able to draw direct connections
in a linear form of experiences that led up to the incident, the actual incident, and the later
impacts. Rather, they tended to be tangled together. I reviewed the data multiple times to try to
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 70
disentangle the order and have presented my interpretation of the sequences, at times needing to
infer.
Subjectivity Statement
As a qualitative researcher, I cannot claim to be objective. I navigated dual roles in this
study both as an employee of the institution where it is set, and a researcher of student
experiences within it. I brought my own worldview and experiences as a student, instructor, and
employee into the study. My subjectivity, although I have worked to manage it, affects the
analysis of the data and the interpretation of the results.
Being an insider in the organization was helpful so far as being able to get permission to
undertake the study, recruit participants, and conduct interviews on campus (which is closed to
the public). However, being an insider also affected my subjectivity during the data collection
and analysis. I was aware that my insider knowledge might prejudice my findings and reminded
participants that I was there to document their experiences and there were no wrong answers. I
had several interviews in which participants described course activities or policies that I was
familiar with because of my insider role but I had to ensure I collected complete details from the
participants’ perspective rather than my own. In some cases, I could see that the participants did
not experience an activity as the faculty member had intended and found them confusing or
frustrating. I needed to be vigilant to try to hear the participants’ experiences without imposing
my own thoughts or trying to redirect their impressions.
Although I am an insider in the institution where the study took place, I am an outsider to
the culture of the participant population that were all Emirati women. Nevertheless, I have nearly
11 years of experience living and working in the region which offers some, albeit still limited,
understanding of the culture. Perhaps importantly for the research findings, my position as an
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 71
outsider is common for many of the faculty and staff in the roles of teaching and supporting
learning in this cultural context, so I believe the interpretation of the data from this viewpoint
may be helpful to other practitioners.
I engaged in certain activities to manage my bias. I kept an interview diary and after
interviews noted down circumstances when I thought I might have influenced the participants’
answers. For example, I was surprised to hear a participant discuss a class activity that I was
familiar with because I had consulted with the instructor about it previously. However, I could
tell from the participant’s description of their experience that they had not understood the activity
instruction. I was conscious during the interview not to correct the participant, and I noted in my
diary to review my questions and responses in the transcripts to ensure I did not unduly project
my impression. The participant cross-check interviews were helpful in ensuring that I had not
misrepresented any of the participants’ ideas. The trustworthiness checks where I had
conversations with experienced colleagues (details below) were also helpful in identifying some
areas in which I was influenced by my assumptions. My perceptions and assumptions cannot be
removed from this research, but I endeavoured to manage my bias.
Trustworthiness
By conducting a historical review of CIT studies, Butterfield et al. (2005) found there
was wide variation in the procedures for establishing credibility and trustworthiness, and it
“appears that the language and procedures used to establish the credibility of findings from a CIT
study have tended to follow a more positivistic line” (p. 485). The use of statistical tests such as
standard deviations or drawing new samples from the same population were checks that had been
used in the past. With the shift away from using observable behaviours toward using self-reports
of personal experiences as the main unit of data collected, Butterfield et al. (2005) called for
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 72
some revisiting of the earlier work on credibility and trustworthiness. Therefore, to ensure
trustworthiness in self-reporting studies focused on personal experiences rather than task
analysis, nine credibility checks must be done as part of an ECIT study (Butterfield et al., 2009).
These checks are “especially useful when the study involves the report of perceptions regarding
an experience rather than direct observation of a behaviour” (2009, p. 274), as was the case in
this study. Each check is described below and followed in this study:
1. Audio-recording interviews. I audio-recorded interviews on a digital recording device so
that I could work directly with the participants’ words to ensure accurate representation.
2. Interview fidelity. Every third or fourth interview, I had the audio-recording reviewed by
my supervisor, a person who was familiar with the ECIT. The reason was to ensure that I
was conducting the interview properly, that I followed the interview guide, and that I was
not asking leading questions.
3. Independent extraction of CIs. I had a colleague with ten years of teaching experience in
the region review approximately 25% of the interview transcripts and extract what they
understood to be the critical incidents and wish-list items. When there was any
disagreement on the items extracted, we discussed these discrepancies (primarily
regarding incomplete incidents), which resulted in some minor changes to the incident
details used in the data analysis.
4. Exhaustiveness. Interviewing in an ECIT study continues until no new categories emerge,
which is referred to as exhaustiveness. This stage was reached as discussed in the
Research Participants section.
5. Participation rates. For each theme, it is common in CIT to report the percentage of
participants who reported an item so that strength and credibility can be established and
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 73
reported. Through the use of nodes in NVivo I tracked which participant identified each
item and reported these counts in the findings chapter.
6. Placing incidents into themes by an independent judge. In this credibility check, I sent a
different colleague, with fifteen years of teaching experience in the region, a random list
of about one quarter of the examples from each theme, as well as a list of the theme
descriptions. I then asked them to sort the items into themes. The goal is a match rate of
80% or better (Andersson & Nilsson, 1964), and after discussion we were able to achieve
complete agreement.
7. Cross-checking by participants. This credibility check involved going back to the
participants for a second short interview, which I conducted as explained in the data
collection methods.
8. Expert opinion. This check had the finalized list of themes reviewed by an expert in the
field. I asked them to comment on whether the themes were useful, whether they found
anything surprising, and whether they found anything missing. I recruited an experienced
faculty member with twenty years of teaching experience at the institution to complete
this check and make some minor changes to language.
9. Theoretical agreement. I compared the findings with the existing scholarly literature in
the field which is presented in Chapter 5.
Ethical Considerations
As this research involved collection of data from human subjects, it was important that
ethical issues were considered as part of the research design and adhered to throughout the
research project. I submitted (and had accepted) an ethical review to the University of Calgary
Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board (REB16-2047), and the PFU Research Ethics
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 74
Committee. I completed the Course on Research Ethics (CORE) tutorial to adhere to the
University of Calgary’s observance to the Tri-Council Policy Statement 2 guidelines, and the
Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) social and behavioural research modules to
adhere to PFU policy for research involving human subjects.
Throughout the data collection, I was conscious that participants would speak Arabic as
their first language and English as a second-or-other language, so I adjusted accordingly. I
modified the consent template from the University of Calgary to simplify the language and make
it more accessible (see Appendix 1). When I first made appointments for interviews, I sent the
potential participants the informed consent form to ensure they had ample time to review it. I
also sent a request to prepare for the interview. The request was to think of a specific time they
were very engaged and very disengaged with learning at PFU because I wanted them to collect
their ideas before having to express them in a second language. Before each interview began, I
asked if they had had a chance to review the consent form on their own, and then we did a
section-by-section review of the form together, answering any questions as we went. I was
conscious that many participants were participating in their first research interview and wanted
to ensure they could ask any questions. After this, I gave them time to review the form on their
own and decide if they wanted to sign it, which all participants did. In the consent form, I asked
participants to provide a pseudonym. Many participants found it unfamiliar and struggled with
the idea. Most asked me to select one for them, which I did as a part of the data analysis. I
generated a list of suitable pseudonyms by asking an experienced colleague (independent judge
from step 6 of the trustworthiness checks) to create a list of the common student names from
their teaching experience at the institution and assigned them to the participants. This pseudonym
was used to refer to the participants throughout the data analysis and reporting. A third-party
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 75
transcription company with a confidentiality agreement was used. After transcription, I assigned
further pseudonyms to any of the people referred to in participant interviews (like instructor,
friend, or sibling names), to ensure that confidentiality was maintained. In the reporting stages of
the project, the confidentiality of participants remained of the utmost importance. When
reporting incidents and using quotations, I placed priority on maintaining the confidentiality of
the participants.
Limitations and Delimitations
Various limitations occurred in this study. The study only explained the experiences of
female students at PFU that self-selected to participate, as it was designed to be exploratory and
learn about the factors that participants perceived to be helping and hindering their engagement
in learning in university. As such, the results are based on the experience of women in the study.
A second limitation is that I, the researcher, can only report the results as being tentative, as they
are dependent upon my subjective creation of themes and placement of incidents in these themes.
The credibility checks were helpful in addressing this limitation, as some of the incidents were
extracted by someone other than myself and placed into a theme by another independent person.
Both the participants and experts in the field verified the themes.
The ECIT depends on participants being able to remember their stories in detail and
being willing to tell their stories openly and honestly (Sharoff, 2008). I had only two interactions
with the participants and no extended relationship with them; therefore, I endeavoured to build
an open and safe environment in the interview setting. Participants may have chosen not to
disclose their story in complete detail, or they may have forgotten details or embellished the
incidents. Including only incidents that the participants could explain both generally and in detail
helped to mitigate this issue. I also used an interview guide to ensure that the questions were
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 76
presented to each participant in the same way, as small changes in the wording of questions has
been found to vary results (Sharoff, 2008).
Some delimitations of the study exist in relation to the chosen population. PFU was the
only institution used in this study. Only female students were interviewed, because the programs
offered to females at PFU are different from those offered to males, and this study wanted to
pursue the perspectives of women. I delimited the study to include the perceptions of students,
which are a particular subset of those involved in the learning environment and excluded
instructors, administrators, and supporting staff. Although this allowed a focus on what was
important to female students, including the perspectives of the others might reveal interesting
findings which would influence practice. I chose to include students from early and late in their
undergraduate degrees, and from a variety of programs. Studying engagement in certain
programs or points in a degree program or across institutions in the context could also bear on
findings that would further understanding. Finally, studying students’ perception of their
engagement longitudinally or in more tightly controlled timeframes could help to understand
engagement and how it changes over time.
Chapter Summary
This chapter provided an overview of the methodology for this study. I began with a
discussion related to the research paradigm for the study. Next, given the possible lack of
familiarity with CIT, I gave an overview of the origins of CIT, and the development over time of
CIT for use in interpretivist approaches. I then reviewed a collection of different applications of
CIT, and finally discussed the suitability of CIT for this study. In the next major section, I
discussed the methods I undertook for the study. I explained my decisions on the research
population, the data collection, and the data analysis procedures. Next, I discussed my
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 77
subjectivity and the methods undertaken to ensure trustworthiness. Finally, I finished the chapter
with ethical considerations, limitations and delimitations.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 78
Chapter 4: Findings
This chapter presents the findings from the 21 interviews conducted for this study,
separated into three phases as described by Holloway and Schwartz (2014). Phase 1 begins with
a general description of the data set, which includes demographic data, the participants’
definitions of engagement, frequencies of the incident types (engaged and disengaged) and
focuses (coursework assignments, teaching approaches, or extracurricular activities). Next, I
present a general summary of the incidents by type and focus. In Phase 2, I explain the themes
that emerged from the participant data by personal and social factors, and incident type. I include
theme descriptions and participant quotations to explain their meaning. Then, I present the
themes from the wish-list portion of the interview. Finally, I complete Phase 3, a cross-
comparison of the incidents.
Phase 1: Characterization of Incidents
In this section, following Holloway and Schwartz’s (2014) data analysis procedures for
critical incident studies, I describe the sample, confirming that the collected incidents relate to
the research question, and explain an overview of the data.
Description of the sample
The study sample involved 21 female students at various points in their academic
program with half in the first or second year of their program, and half in the third or fourth year.
The progression is relevant because at the institution, the first two years of study is a general
education program (University College) with a set curriculum. In the third and fourth year,
students take courses only in their major. One participant was in her first year of study, and nine
participants were in their second year of study, meaning that altogether 10 participants were at
least partially in the general education program. Four participants were in their third year, and
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 79
seven were in their final year, meaning that 11 participants were taking courses related only to
their major. Although I recruited participants campus-wide, the greatest participation came from
the Environmental Science program. Table 1 below includes the participants’ reported program
of study.
Table 1
Demographic Details of Participants
Pseudonym Program Year of
program
Program Entry
Amna Environmental Science 4th Language Development
Aisha University College/Information Technology 2nd Language Development
Afra Environmental Science 3rd Language Development
Badria Environmental Science 4th Language Development
Bedoor Information Technology 2nd Direct
Fatima University College/Interior Design 2nd Language Development
Hamda Environmental Science 4th Language Development
Hessa University College/International Studies 1st Direct
Hind Environmental Science 4th Language Development
Jamila Environmental Science 3rd Language Development
Laila Environmental Science 3rd Direct
Khadija Security and Networking 4th Language Development
Mariam Environmental Science 3rd Direct
Moza International Affairs 2nd Transfer
Nadia Management Information Systems 2nd Language Development
Reem Public Health and Nutrition 2nd Direct
Suhaila International Affairs 2nd Language Development
Sheikha Public Health and Nutrition 2nd Direct
Salma Graphic Design 2nd Transfer
Wafa Psychology 4th Direct
Zainab Psychology 4th Direct
The participants in the sample entered the university by different pathways. Most (11) of
the participants had initially joined the university by spending some time in the language
development program until they achieved the required language requirement (aligned with
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 80
approximately an IETLS 5.5 score). Many of the participants (8) had entered directly from high
school into the University College general program. Finally, a small number of participants (2)
had transferred to the institution after completing courses at a different local university.
Consequently, the sample includes perspectives from female students at various points in their
program, with varying pathways of entry into the university.
Confirmation that incidents related to the research question
To confirm that the incidents pertained to my research question, I read through all the
transcripts to identify the incidents. I used criteria guidance from Butterfield et al. (2005) to
guide my decisions on inclusion. They stated that incidents needed to meet three criteria: "(a)
they consist of antecedent information (what led up to it); (b) they contain a detailed description
of the experience itself; and (c) they describe the outcome of the incident" (p. 488). Further, it
was essential that the emphasis of the incident was related to the focus of my research question.
Based on these criteria, I included 37 incidents from 19 participants. These incidents all
comprised recounting times when participants perceived they were engaged or disengaged with
learning at university, complete with detailed explanations of the factors that were important
from their perspective.
I decided the engaged and disengaged incidents from both Bedoor and Suhaila and the
disengaged incident from Salma should be excluded from the study because they did not meet
the inclusion criteria. Bedoor and Suhaila gave limited detail about a collection of general
situations, so did not have enough specific or coherent detail to form incidents. Salma’s
disengaged explanation did not concentrate on her engagement in learning so was not related to
the focus of the research question.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 81
Overall understanding of the data
Next, to gain an understanding of the data, I re-read the interview transcripts and looked
for characteristics that would help describe the incidents. I decided there were two prominent
characteristics portrayed in the incidents which could be helpful in understanding the data:
• Type of engagement: Engaged or disengaged
• Focus of the incident: Coursework, teaching approach, extracurricular activity
Type of engagement.
There were two general types of incident, engaged and disengaged, primarily because of
the structure of the interview. In the following table, I present the frequencies of the included
incidents to describe the sample.
Table 2
Included Incident Frequency by Type
Engaged Disengaged
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Total
Total 19 51% 18 49% 37
Focus of the incident. After reading and re-reading the transcripts, I felt it was important
to describe and categorize the general focus of the incidents recounted by participants.
Participants made individual decisions about the examples they chose for their incidents as long
as (a) it was an example of a time they were engaged or disengaged with learning, and (b) it drew
from their undergraduate experience at the university. I did not guide participants to choose a
course, teacher, or experience. However, after reviewing the incidents, I decided the incidents fit
quite firmly into three categories. Overall, most (26) incidents concentrated on a coursework
assignment, some (9) highlighted a particular teaching approach, and a small number (2) centred
on a specific extracurricular activity.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 82
Table 3
Incident Frequency by Focus
Focus of Incident Engaged Disengaged Total
Coursework assignment 14 11 25
Teaching approach 3 7 10
Extracurricular activity 2 0 2
Total 19 18 37
Above, I described the sample in terms of frequencies of type and focus of the incidents.
Next, I present a description of the participants’ definitions of engagement.
Definitions of engagement
At the start of the interviews, as a way to have the participants define what it meant to
them to be engaged or disengaged, I asked them to describe how they knew if a student was
engaged or disengaged. Their responses had elements of several general definitions.
I discovered the most common definition from participants (Amna, Aisha, Hessa,
Khadija, Moza, Reem, Sheikha) was that an engaged student was one who was behaviourally
compliant to the rules of a classroom. This student came to class on time, handed work in by the
deadline, and participated in discussions. Some added the student behaved like they “wanted to
be there.”
Other participants (Mariam, Nadia) discussed how being an engaged student was a choice
when an individual took an interest in the subject, asked questions, and chose to share her
opinions and ideas in class. To them, a disengaged student was one who was simply not
behaviourally obedient. This student would be likely to come to class late and only because of
attendance requirements (the institution requires class attendance; students who miss over 15%
of classes without excuse will automatically receive a WF withdraw/fail from the course), would
possibly play on their phone or computer for much of the class, would not complete required
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 83
work by the deadline, and chose not to pay attention or participate in class activities or
discussions. Although these behaviours might sound like descriptions of two different
individuals, many of the participants said that they were sometimes one and sometimes the other
depending on multiple factors such as the course, topic, or the day.
I found another group of participants (Badria, Fatima, Hamda) aligned the idea of being
engaged with being able to make autonomous decisions about their learning. For example, they
said that when students were treated as mature enough to make choices about how to approach
an assignment, or when they were able to elect to take courses on topics related to their major
rather than general required courses, they would be engaged.
Some participants defined engagement as the product of an interaction between the
students in the class, the instructor, and the material (Hind, Jamila, Laila, Wafa, Zainab). Their
definitions contained actions the students undertook in class such as seeking out new
information, co-operating, approaching the course with a positive attitude, and doing actions the
instructor initiated, such as building a friendly and flexible environment.
Lastly, I found two participants defined engaged students as individuals who chose to be
involved in university extracurricular activities that aligned with their interests (Afra, Salma).
These two participants both went on to describe engaged incidents that were examples of their
involvement in extracurricular activities.
Overall, all the definitions described engagement and disengagement as transitional states
that could be entered into for reasons related to multiple complex factors, often not entirely
controlled by the participant. Being engaged and disengaged were not seen as static traits of an
individual, rather it was one that changed according to a variety of external and internal factors.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 84
Descriptions of incidents by focus
To show which elements participants chose to emphasize, I will now provide a summary
of the incidents by focus (coursework, teaching approach, extracurricular). For me to categorize
an incident as focusing on a coursework assignment, it needed to centre on a formal course
assessment (project, paper, laboratory report, etc.) as the object of the participant’s engagement.
To be categorized as a teaching approach, the participant’s incident concentrated on the actions
and methods of a particular instructor. Finally, to be classified as extracurricular, the participant
spotlighted an activity external to a formal course, but still part of a university-sanctioned
endeavour. I list the included participant breakdown of the focuses in Table 4, and following this,
I give a general description of the incidents related to each focus.
Coursework assignment (25/37).
I found that most participants recounted incidents focused on their effort on a coursework
assignment (25 of 37).
Engaged—Coursework assignment (14/19).
By far, most of the engaged incidents chosen by participants concerned a coursework
assignment (14 of 19), and the examples included many of the application-type assignments
commonly part of university courses. For example, assignments may have involved the
following: to do a group project to solve a problem; collect data from off-campus for later
analysis; write a research or persuasive paper about a topic they found interesting; critique a
video; perform an experiment; volunteer off-campus; participate in role play; create a
progressive design in a sketchbook; or create a website. Study participants selected a variety of
individual or group assignments. Notably, although all these were formal in-course assessments,
none were examinations or tests.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 85
Table 4
Participant Incident Focus
Participant Engaged Focus Disengaged Focus
Amna Coursework Coursework
Aisha Coursework Coursework
Afra Extracurricular Coursework
Badria Coursework Coursework
Fatima Coursework Coursework
Hamda Coursework Teaching approach
Hessa Coursework Coursework
Hind Coursework Coursework
Jamila Teaching approach Teaching approach
Laila Coursework Coursework
Khadija Coursework Teaching approach
Mariam Teaching approach Coursework
Moza Coursework Coursework
Nadia Coursework Teaching approach
Reem Teaching approach Teaching approach
Sheikha Coursework Teaching approach
Salma Extracurricular N/A
Wafa Coursework Coursework
Zainab Coursework Teaching approach
Disengaged—Coursework assignments (11/18).
Although a smaller proportion than the engaged incidents, I observed that most of the
participants still chose to describe their participation in a coursework assignment for their
disengaged incident (11 of 18) over the other focuses. Most of the incidents (7) described by
participants were written essays or reports. Although the topics and structure varied, they
included lab reports, book reviews, a persuasive essay, and research papers. The participants
frequently noted the difficulty of the assignments because they did not enjoy writing, and in
many cases were frustrated when they received feedback that details of their work needed to be
improved.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 86
Teaching approach (10/37).
I found that three engaged incidents and seven disengaged incidents (10 total)
emphasized a teaching approach. The participants talked about the characteristics and methods of
a teacher that either supported or discouraged their engagement. Although the coursework
assignments would clearly have been embedded in a particular teaching approach, I decided
there was a subset of the incidents where participants centred more on the teacher's approach
than the characteristics or individual effort on the assignment as the crucial component of their
engagement or disengagement. For me to classify an incident as focusing on the teaching
approach, participants may have mentioned course assessments but placed the reasoning for their
engagement or disengagement with the instructor rather than on the task. In the next section, I
describe the engaged incidents focusing on the teaching approach, and then the disengaged
incidents.
Engaged—Teaching approach (3/19).
When a teaching approach was the focus of an engaged incident, the participants
represented the instructors as supportive and attentive, and they seemed to have a positive
relationship with them. Participants emphasized the importance of receiving personalized,
positive feedback from the instructor, and the way they set high but achievable expectations.
Further, they mentioned the way the instructors encouraged questioning and inspired the students
to solve and analyse problems and genuinely understand the material, rather than to memorize it.
They also described a teacher who worked hard to reduce the barriers between themselves and
the students and sought to understand what the students were trying to communicate despite
language challenges. Finally, the instructor respected students’ opinions even if they were not the
same as theirs and learned from the students; they did not act as if they were “higher” than the
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 87
students. In summary, a positive relationship with an instructor who had high expectations and
energy often matched the engaged incidents in this category.
Disengaged—Teaching approach (7/18).
Seven disengaged incidents dealt with the teaching approach. In four of these incidents, I
found participants described experiences where they felt the instructor just did not recognize that
most students in the class did not understand the material and so they did not adjust to support
them better. For example, several indicated in each of their cases that the instructor just kept
progressing through the content despite few of the students comprehending. In general, poor
pacing and scaffolding seemed the most common concern associated with these disengaged
incidents about the teaching approach.
The assessment approach played into some of these incidents. Two participants indicated
the exams included questions they did not think they had been appropriately prepared for by the
instructor. They believed that despite having studied and done extra work on their own outside
the class, they did not feel the instructor was fairly assessing them on what they had been taught
and this was the reason for their disengagement.
Another participant described an instructor who used a teaching style that involved a lot
of discussion, and she found it confusing. The teaching approach centred on group work in
which the instructor would ask the class questions and the responses from students made up the
answers. She said she wanted more summaries and explanation directly from the instructor,
stating the readings were too challenging for her and learning difficult material from other
students’ comments was not explicit enough. In this case, the teaching approach was too
unstructured for her learning.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 88
Overall, the disengaged incidents based on a teaching approach had students reporting a
miscommunication or misunderstanding about pacing, assessment, or class structure.
Extracurricular (2, only engaged).
A small number of participants’ engaged incidents (and no disengaged incidents)
involved the participants explaining their voluntary involvement in an extracurricular project as
their example of a time when they were very engaged with learning. Afra described her role as a
student participant on a faculty-led interdisciplinary research project. She thought she was a
different version of herself when she participated in the project when compared to her behaviour
in class; she overcame shyness, worked in a collaborative group, gained confidence and could
test out her ideas and get genuine feedback from more senior people. Salma described her
participation in the Peer Assistance Leader (PALs) program as the most engaged she had been in
learning at university. Soon after starting to work as a PAL, she set herself goals to become a
mentor and described a process where she worked with the manager to build the knowledge,
skills, and confidence to achieve the goal. The social connections of the “family” of PALS was a
significant draw for her, and she liked the responsibility and recognition that came with
representing the university at events (something PALS are often called on to do). Through her
time at PALS she had learned to set and achieve goals and gained considerable confidence in
herself. Both Afra and Salma valued the importance of the social connections, responsibility, and
independence they found in these experiences.
Phase 1. Summary
The purpose of this section was to offer an overview of the incidents. I started by giving a
description of the sample and confirming the incidents I would include in the further analysis
were all related to the research question. I then summarized the participant definitions of
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 89
engagement. Next, I defined the types (engaged, disengaged) and focuses (coursework, teaching
approach, and extracurricular) that I created to describe the data, and displayed frequencies of
each, as is common in CIT. Finally, I outlined examples of the incidents broken down by
incident focus: coursework, teaching approach, and extracurricular activities. In the next section,
I will review the emergent themes and categories.
Phase 2: Emergent Categories and Themes
In Phase 2, I began the thematic coding of incidents. I started with an emergent coding
approach, in which the descriptive codes came directly from the interview data. I recorded the
codes as nodes in an NVivo database resulting in 112 helping and 76 hindering codes and 62
wish list items.
Following this, I began to group the codes conceptually to create categories that emerged
from the data. Finally, I iteratively grouped the categories into themes within the engaged or
disengaged types. As per the research question, I divided the themes into personal (factors that
participants thought, felt, or undertook themselves that supported their engagement) and social
(what other people, such as teachers, peers, or family, did to encourage their engagement). I
worked in cycles, grouping similar codes, re-reading areas of the transcripts, generating and
refining categories, then themes, and sorting themes into types. This analysis resulted in the
following themes and incident frequencies:
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 90
Table 5
Themes and Frequencies of Incidents
Engaged Disengaged
Personal
Theme Frequency Theme Frequency
Choice in the topic 11 Lack of interest in the topic 10
Personal development 10 Language issues 9
First times 10
Contextualized to their world 4
Social
Teachers’ characteristics and
actions
18 Teachers’ characteristics and
actions
18
Feedback 8 Expecting more guidance 7
Enthusiasm 6 Demotivated by feedback 4
Encouraging independence 6 Alienated teaching
relationship
4
Guidance with flexibility 6 Social supports (peers, family) 4
Approaches class as
learning together
4 Dysfunctional groups 3
Social supports (peers, family) 13
The right mix of a group 9
In summary, across all incidents, I developed themes that resulted in two areas of focus:
(a) personal (things participants did to support their engagement); and (b) social (things other
people such as teachers, peers, classmates, or family members did to encourage their
engagement). In this section, I discuss the engaged and disengaged personal factors first, in
descending order of frequency, and then, in the next section I turn to the engaged and disengaged
social factors (also in descending order of frequency).
Personal
Engaged: Choice in the topic (11/19).
I found the most prevalent theme supporting participants’ engagement was participants
having a sense of control over (or choice about) the topic or the type of activity they were
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 91
undertaking. For example, Aisha and Moza reported that when they were able to choose their
topics, it allowed them to add their voice and opinions, which they appreciated and found
motivating. When Badria was given the opportunity to choose a topic very different from those
of the other students in the class, she took pride in her final product because it was original,
which made it more interesting for her.
Some participants noted how motivating assessment flexibility was and allowed them to
select a topic with personal relevance; for example, Amna explained her reason for finding a
topic interesting: she had heard conflicting information about the topic from the instructor and
her family, and wanted to resolve the dissonance, which the coursework allowed her to do.
Sheikha voiced a personal interest in genetic engineering and she was able to dig deeply into it
with a flexible assignment in a writing course. Zainab cherished the flexibility and freedom to
choose the format of a final presentation which gave her agency on how to present what she had
learned in a way that emphasized her strengths. In general, I found participants reported that
being given the autonomy to choose a topic or type of assignment was a factor they often
connected with engaged incidents.
I also noticed that from the participants’ perspective, if the instructor did not allow the
participant autonomy regarding their topic, or required detailed but perhaps boring work, they
sometimes perceived it was because the instructor was rigid or disinterested, rather than being
associated with a course or curriculum requirement. Hessa and Afra provided their examples:
He didn't ask me to change it. Like other like teachers, if they're not interested in my
topic, they will ask me to change it. (Hessa)
I don’t like, come to the class and study whole, and then go to home and study the thing. I
am not really interested in these things. I’m interested in a project that that’s, like, I can
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 92
really learn something new something out of the book, something out. Sometimes the
teachers feel, like, you have to learn each detail. Sometimes it’s like annoying there.
(Afra)
Some participants indicated that by being allowed to choose the topic or assessment format, they
used this as a shortcut to avoid building required academic skills. For example, Hessa provided
an overview of how she chose a presentation format to avoid using statistics and summarising
other people’s information. In turn, she and Moza preferred to give their opinion rather than
using academic sources. Therefore, it is a difficult mix to allow students to find topics with
personal relevance but also challenge them to learn new information and skills.
Engaged: Personal development (10/19).
In the next most prevalent personal theme, I found 10 participants reported experiencing
a personal developmental change that resulted from the experience of their engaged incident. For
example, some participants described becoming more confident (Amna, Afra, Khadija, Sheikha,
Salma, Wafa), overcoming shyness (Afra), learning to handle anger (Afra), and developing
empathy (Nadia, Zainab), patience, and communication skills. Further, they reported being
interested in a topic for the learning beyond just the grades (Laila, Nadia, Wafa). Several
participants said they had started to plan or do things outside the university in different ways,
based on their experience of the engaged incident. Laila reported she undertook a new hobby
because of an interest sparked by her engaged incident; Zainab was considering applying for a
master’s degree; and Nadia stated that she was thinking about a job she had not previously
considered. Further, Moza discussed an assignment that encouraged her to compare her day-to-
day experience to people living in a different part of the world, helping her recognize how
privileged she was.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 93
Moza: For me, not having that right car maybe is an issue. I want a bigger one. For them,
having a car is an issue. They need a car.
Interviewer: Yeah. Absolutely. It makes sense.
Moza: Yeah, it makes you think you’re a little spoiled.
Although the goals of the course or extracurricular activities were not intended to develop these
positive affective outcomes, for these participants they were a meaningful result of being
engaged.
Engaged: First times (10/19).
Similar to the previous theme, in 10 of the engaged incidents I learned participants
experienced something that was a “personal first,” which was an important factor for them. For
several, it was simply that the topic was entirely new to them, and they were exposed to a new
field or application of information which they could relate to and understand. For example,
Hamda recounted how she had learned a series of laboratory skills earlier in the course, and
based on that learning, she was excited that she was able to design her own experiment for the
first time. Nadia was involved in learning about and meeting people with disabilities through an
assignment, and this was something she had never known much about or had exposure to. Her
experience of spending time with people with disabilities for the first time challenged her to
overcome her stereotyped perceptions. Salma related how after she volunteered for the first time
as a part of the PALs program, her entire university experience changed. She joined PALs,
started volunteering more, became more involved in campus activities, met many new friends,
and became more interested in and serious about her studies.
For some others, the first time involved learning a new skill that was not connected to a
course learning outcome. For example, Amna and Aisha learned a technical tool (iMovie and
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 94
PowToons respectively) for the creation of the final group presentation. They felt it drew on their
strengths and liked it being a new practical skill. Sheikha spoke about how she learned for the
first time how to use the electronic journal resources available in the library, in which she found
a wealth of information well beyond what she had access to in high school. With this new skill,
she became engrossed in researching her topic.
Amna described a personal first time that was somewhat unexpected and different from
the others. In her incident, she described going with group members to interview people at a mall
off-campus. When indicating why she found the project engaging, she disclosed it was not
related to the course or project content, but rather that she had learned how to navigate getting
permission from her father to do things independently.
Amna: It’s good for the student to be interested. You know why, because my father, he
never lets me go outside by myself. Take your brother, take your sister. But I was
interested, so I’ve succeed my father to let me go to Global Village by myself and my
friend. He didn’t let me to go with my friends so that’s a problem. When you are
interested then you want something, you will do the best.
Interviewer: Okay. So you convinced him to let you go to do some of the interviews?
Amna: I've just talked to him, and I was confident by myself. I didn't tell him I want to
go. I told him I will go with my friend to this place. And he said why we have project,
something like that. Then he was ok. By the way, this is the first time, and I'll do it again
and again.
Interviewer: So you've tried to convince him before, but this was the first time you
succeeded?
Amna: Yeah. Because, you know, I’ve discovered the way to convince him by
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 95
telling him “I will go there.” That’s it.
When describing a time when they had been engaged, some participants said it was essential to
achieve competence and confidence in their first exposure to a particular topic, skill, or situation.
Interestingly, many of these first-time skills or situations did not seem connected to the expected
outcomes of the course assessment, but they were important to the participant’s perception of
their engagement.
Disengaged: Lack of interest (10/18).
The most common personal theme (10) emerging from the disengaged incidents was a
lack of interest in the topic. This lack of interest stemmed from a variety of reasons. First,
participants may have perceived the course material as useless or irrelevant. For example, Moza
said the material for the course initially sounded as though it would be interesting, but then she
felt that she already knew or understood the concepts taught in the course, and that made the
topic unenjoyable. She found the structure of an assessment irrelevant and not worth her effort,
so she felt justified in copying information from a website (which did not appear to be caught by
the instructor). Further, even though she was able to achieve a high grade in the course, she did
not engage with the material beyond simply producing what was required of her. Another
example of how material seemed unconnected was in the case of Mariam, who explained she
was frustrated by the topic for an assignment, as she felt the material was irrelevant to her world.
She said:
It’s totally disengaging because I'm learning about another country that's not mine. I want
to learn about my [emphasis added] country because that's eventually what I'll be
contributing to, not to that country.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 96
Mariam did empathize with her instructor for trying to relate and connect the material about
different countries to the UAE context. However, she was expressing her frustration about
regularly having to learn information unlinked to the UAE context. She could not relate to these
other places, so she did not find the information about them relevant or exciting. So the lack of
interest about a topic may have come about because the material in the course was repetitive or
disconnected from the reality of these participants.
For other participants, I discovered their lack of interest stemmed from a requirement to
approach the topic in an academic way. For example, Hind said that writing a research paper was
not compelling because the assignment required her to take information from journal articles and
summarize it. For the activity to be interesting from her perspective, she wanted to be able to
direct the method of finding information, preferably through websites and videos instead of
journal articles. She said she was attracted to a lot of the topics they discussed in class, and she
was continually googling little pieces of information, reading short web pages, and watching
videos. Given how Hind also said she did not like reading, it is possible that the required journal
articles were too difficult for her to understand and summarize. From her perspective, however,
it was the requirement to use journal articles that made her disengage, perhaps pointing to an
emotional reaction to a difficult learning task.
Like some others, Hessa worked hard on producing what she thought the instructor
wanted, rather than something she found interesting. She indicated that although the instructor
gave her a lot of choice about the book she could use for her review, she chose one that she
thought the instructor would find interesting, even though it was not appealing to her. By trying
to please the instructor rather than following her interests, she ended up reviewing a book she did
not find interesting. Then because of this lack of interest, she did not expend much effort on it.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 97
Since she was only trying to produce what she perceived the instructor wanted, it was not an
engaging task. Along similar lines, Jamila felt uninterested in the whole set of courses she was
taking that semester. She found the required courses were uninspiring and they all required
memorization. She felt she did not have the skills to do well in these courses and was frustrated
that she did not have a choice but needed to take them anyway. In these cases, I think the
participants’ reported lack of interest may stem from having little control over how to approach
the assignment or material, or they decided to produce what the instructor wanted rather than
show what they had learned.
When participants reported this lack of interest, I noticed it connected with their choosing
not to spend a lot of time on the material. For example, Fatima said when a course was not in her
major, she would focus only on the grade and wanting to finish it, but when it was in her major
area, she was more likely to invest time and energy beyond what the instructor required as part of
an assignment.
In summary, I found many participants discussed disengaging because they were not
interested and for varied additional reasons such as: not seeing the relevance of a topic, finding
the task too challenging, not being able to approach an assessment in a way they thought was
meaningful, and simply having other competing tasks (potentially more relevant) that distracted
them.
Disengaged: Language issues (9/18).
I found that most participants (9) identified issues related to language or their lack of skill
in reading, writing, or listening as a reason for their disengagement. While most courses in the
context used a medium of instruction of English, a small number of required courses are also in
Arabic.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 98
As an example of language challenges, Hind said she did not enjoy reading and so she
chooses to avoid it whenever possible. In her disengaged incident, she revealed that she struggled
to understand the readings she was expected to use and found it time-consuming and frustrating
to have to search long research papers for small pieces of information, so she tended to give up.
When an assignment required a lot of reading, she disengaged. As another example, Amna
explained that any reading, especially when she was expected to do it quickly, was particularly
strenuous. She said that to understand what she was reading, she would need to read it repeatedly
to be able to comprehend it, which she said was a lot of work. Further, she said when she did put
in the time to complete an assigned reading before class, it seemed typical that her instructor
would re-explain the reading in a more straightforward way. As such, she expressed a preference
for the teacher to tell her the information, as it would “save everyone's time.” Hamda also voiced
frustration with instructor expectations about reading:
They told us to “read the book.” But the book is for one chapter is one hundred pages.
Too much. How long I will read? It contains different terms. Difficult. How many times I
translate? It's really hard. We are students. Not professional. As we know English
language is our second language not the first. So not for me, for everyone. It will be
really hard…I can't be engage with this material if I don't understand it. (Hamda)
Hamda sees a mismatch between the instructor’s expectations and her responsibility and role as a
student. She thinks the instructor does not understand how challenging it is for her and her
classmates to undertake the readings, and how much translation and time it will take for her to
understand it. She also mentioned an interesting link—she needs to understand to be engaged.
I noted some participants discussing how they found writing in English particularly
difficult. Aisha, who said outright that she “hates writing” mentioned an essay assignment where
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 99
she repeatedly got negative feedback about her writing, particularly concerning the structure
(such as the thesis statement) and the instructor highlighted so many errors she felt the instructor
told her it was all wrong. She could not make sense of the expectations of the writing and was
left with the impression that she was incapable. Khadija expressed frustration with a requirement
to write responses in an online discussion board, and her suggestion to improve it was to
undertake the activity in a way that would simply avoid writing. She explained that she thought
some people learn by writing and others do not, and she was one who did not, so she wanted the
instructor to remove the writing portion. These participants did not see writing as a skill they
could develop, but rather something they were terrible at or wanted to avoid. Laila expressed
frustration with an assessment that limited the number of sources she could use, likely a way to
encourage weaker readers to summarize them successfully. However, because she was a stronger
reader, she found this limited her creativity, which in turn made it less enjoyable. So there were
issues with the writing being both too challenging and too simple.
Although many of the incidents related to participants having challenges with reading or
expressing themselves in English, there were also incidents involving Arabic, their first
language. Wafa described an Arabic presentation where she was confident about the material but
speaking in Arabic made her particularly anxious. Despite feeling well prepared, and her
confidence in presenting in English, when she presented for this assignment, she was unable to
find the right words and drew a complete blank. When the instructor asked her what had made
the presentation challenging, Wafa said, “I told her, I understand everything. I know what it's
about. I didn't . . . I couldn't find the words in Arabic.” She was disappointed in her performance
and was distressed about her poor Arabic. However, unlike the other participants who mentioned
challenges with English and wanted to find ways to avoid it, Wafa talked about recognizing she
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 100
did not have strong Arabic skills, and she wanted to work on improving them. She knew it would
be a valuable skill in the workplace to be comfortable in English and Arabic. Despite speaking
Arabic at home, she had taken all of her primary and secondary schooling in English and
struggled with using it in an academic setting. She was distressed about her weak Arabic
because:
Language is culture and I don’t want to lose that. How would I be able to teach my
children? You know, in the future, my grandchildren?
I found it particularly noteworthy how emotional Wafa was, and how the negative experience
had caused her to see a much broader implication of her weak language skills. She wanted to
take responsibility for improving her Arabic in a way that poor performance in English language
skills did not result in the same reaction from other participants.
Language issues were common for most participants. I found that some participants
stated outright they did not like to read or had language issues when it came to expressing
themselves. However, others seemed more indirect and instead wanted to avoid doing something
they were not yet proficient at so they could avoid the feeling of being unsuccessful. Either way,
these issues were clearly affecting their ability to engage with learning at university.
Engaged: Contextualized to their world (4/19).
I established that some participants thought being able to connect their learning to UAE
culture and environment was a key support for their engagement. In particular, the incidents
involved participants finding information or being able to relate information to their context. For
example, in one project in a course (the focus of both Badria’s and Hamda’s incidents),
participants interviewed their parents and grandparents about traditional remedies and then
designed experiments to test the remedies’ efficacy. Their discovering new knowledge connected
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 101
to local traditions seemed important. For example, this is what these two participants had to say
about the relevance of this assignment for their localized context:
When we presented to the teacher, she was like shocked because she’s from another
country and we are from the UAE, so she want to know like a new knowledge, a new
information about this thing. . . . It was like interesting information also. Not for only our
group, other groups and other class. Like also when they were presenting it, we were like
listening and careful. We want to know more about it. (Badria)
Some hospitals they say, “No you don't have to take these medicines because we don't
know the source or we don't know what’s the benefit.” But now I feel interested to
understand why we are taking or eating these medicines. (Hamda)
Although the experiment to find out the efficacy of treatment could conceivably be about any
medicine, the way in which this assignment helped the participants generate new knowledge
about something traditional and familiar to the participants and foreign to the instructors was
something they valued highly.
Afra discussed an extracurricular project she was involved in, and how it helped her
personalize information from her major, realizing how it applies to her home city. One of the
reasons the project was engaging for her was because it helped her envision how she could
contribute to help fix a local environmental issue. She discovered the importance of cleaning up
a local waterfront area called the Creek:
If we don’t care about it, there will be no tourist. And Dubai depends on tourist. So many
factors that led me to the Creek and led me convinced them that Creek is really
important. Yeah, it is Dubai. It’s like my city. So I have to go to the beach and . . . it was
a bad, it was a dirty beach. There were many fishes that were dead. Totally dead. It was
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 102
like oh, my God. You just walk, and all of them are dead. . . . So I was so shocked, dead
fishes. Then I saw it. I was so shocked . . . it’s like my first time learning about
environmental effect and the importance of it. Importance to study these things. (Afra)
In these incidents, participants described a meeting place that supported them to link the
theoretical information they learned in class (which frequently used other countries and cultures
as examples) and applying that knowledge to their local context as very meaningful.
This concludes the personal themes related to both engagement and disengagement. The
engaged themes included the importance to participants to have personal choice in the topics
they were studying; and that they could apply what they were learning to their own context.
Many of the engaged incidents resulted in participants being exposed to a subject area that for
the first time was meaningful or achieved some kind of personal development. In many cases
these experiences were examples of learning supplementary to the task they were involved in,
helping draw attention to the importance of incidental learning to engagement. The disengaged
themes centred around participants being disinterested because they could not see the value or
relevance of what they were studying and because they found the language requirements,
particularly for reading and writing, too challenging.
Next I will consider the social themes, starting with teacher characteristics and actions,
followed by factors related to families, peers, and groups.
Social
In the next section, I offer my review of the engaged and disengaged social themes which
were behaviours participants believed that other people demonstrated to support their
engagement.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 103
Engaged: Teacher’s characteristics and actions (18/19).
The most prevalent theme emerging in this area unsurprisingly focused on the teacher’s
characteristics and actions, both those that helped and hindered engagement. I will break the
factors into several sub-themes below.
Feedback (8/19).
I noted that positive feedback from the teacher on individual performance and on how the
participant could improve was essential to some participants’ engagement. For Jamila and Reem,
it was important that the teacher took individual notice of them and found ways to recognize
their skills, challenge them in distinct ways and encourage them. Salma and Zainab found it
motivating that the instructor had simply noticed and commented on an improvement in their
work or noticed a strong skill of theirs. Fatima and Wafa discussed examples of how they
learned when the instructor showed their work as a model for other students but also gave them
critical ideas on how they could improve it. Hessa and Reem explained how it was indispensable
for them to receive feedback on preliminary work which helped them perform better in the
summative assessment.
In contrast, instructor feedback given on work could have a discouraging effect on
participants, even as part of an engaged incident. Sheikha spoke about being intensely engaged
writing a paper that went beyond the assignment requirements but was only given feedback to
shorten it, which was not enough detail to be helpful. She ended up quite frustrated and made the
decision not to take the input and submitted a paper well over the word length, feeling the
instructor had not appreciated the depth to which she had understood the topic. So, although
feedback can support engagement, it demands the right timing and the right amount, and the
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 104
feedback must recognize the effort of participants. These factors are a balance that participants
wanted instructors to navigate.
Enthusiasm (6/19).
Many participants (Mariam, Hind, Laila) identified a teacher's passion and enthusiasm for
their subject area as critical to their own engagement. Mariam mentioned that when the instructor
was working hard to be energetic in class, she felt she also needed to be energetic and “meet her
there.” Hind stated that the instructor’s passion for the subject encouraged a sense of wonder for
her, making her want to understand and find out why the teacher was so passionate about the
topic. Laila also found it motivating when the teacher was an impassioned expert in their subject
area. It became a challenge for her to be both specific and correct in what she put into her
assignments, knowing the teacher was a specialist and would notice even minute errors. She was
motivated to try to learn something about the topic that was unknown to the teacher.
In a similar vein, it was essential to some (Hamda, Moza,Wafa) that the teacher could
connect the course material to the real world. For example, Moza found the instructor’s ability to
tell stories on the topic based on their personal experience encouraged her engagement, as it
made the material about other cultures more concrete. The teacher’s ability to make connections
between the material and the real world of the participants supported their engagement.
Encouraging independence (6/19).
Participants appreciated the teacher encouraging the participants’ independent
development of ideas. For example, Aisha and Hamda liked it when their teacher encouraged the
students to come up with ideas of their own for project topics, rather than working from a
preformulated list. Afra and Laila valued a teacher who supported them in developing and
investigating their own ideas, rather than simply telling them correct information to recall. Jamila
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 105
was motivated by a sense of wonder when the teacher challenged students with questions that
might be unknown or beyond what they were required to know. A slightly different angle in this
respect occurred with the teacher that Moza mentioned. Because of her respectful stance, she
could analyse issues that were sensitive or uncommon in UAE society in a way that helped Moza
understand them but did not offend her by pressuring her to agree with them. An instructor’s
respect for students’ independence, opinions, and knowledge as a starting place arose through
this theme.
Guidance with flexibility (4/19).
A balance of flexibility and guidance from the instructor stood out for several
participants. For example, Khadija thought structured, clear tutorials which gave her information
on how to complete her assignment were helpful. Amna and Laila found the flexible,
intermediate deadlines their teachers gave throughout a project were vital to their staying on
track and helping them to produce high-quality work. Overall, participants liked the balanced
approach when the instructor offered guidance on how to undertake the task but allowed
flexibility on deadlines.
Approaches class as learning together (3/19).
Three participants (Badria, Mariam, Moza) spoke about how they appreciated the teacher
taking an approach that positioned students and teachers as learning together, rather than the
teacher being the only source of knowledge. As an example, Mariam said the teacher “came to
their level,” made a point of genuinely trying to understand what students were trying to
communicate in class, and at times even changed her opinion based on information students
provided. It was important to her that the instructor tried to understand and respect the
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 106
perspectives of students in the class rather than dismissing them or not understanding them,
which presumably she felt often happened. Mariam explained:
Like there is respect, yet she is removing that barrier, you know. . . . You know “I'm not
only a teacher. I'm not only here to boss you,” like “say whatever you want because
thinking about it, we can also choose on something,” you know. They learn from us. So I
love teachers that they accept, you know. Like the they’re be like, “Oh, you’re right.
You’re right.” And they go like “Okay, as she said” and then continue. It’s not like we're
the expert, and then you're the dummies that you don't know anything. It's like that you're
almost more equal. (Mariam)
Badria appreciated working with her instructor to make sense of the results of an
experiment she had designed. She also appreciated the support from the instructor trying to help,
but not knowing all the answers. She found it appealing that she and the instructor were working
together to find the solution, rather than the instructor being the source of all the knowledge and
her role being to remember it. I found participants reported that by breaking down the structure
of the teacher as the source of knowledge and the students as the recipients, instructors were able
to support their engagement.
Disengaged: Teacher characteristics and actions (11/18).
Although the teacher’s characteristics and actions featured heavily in supporting
engagement, it also featured prominently in disengaged incidents.
Expecting more guidance from the teacher (7/18).
Many disengaged incidents occurred when the participants believed the teacher should be
giving them more guidance on what to do, or conversely, when participants pushed back when
the instructor expected them to be more independent than they thought they should be.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 107
In a teacher–student relationship at an undergraduate level, there is a level of negotiation
when a teacher wants the student to learn the topic broadly, and the student in some capacity
focuses on what is required to pass the assessments for the course. I found in many of the
disengaged incidents, participants expressed a mismatch in expectations. They did not
understand what the instructor wanted from them, did not think what the instructor was
expecting was reasonable or did not seem to recognize that the instructor’s activities would work
toward students understanding the topic independently. For example, Amna explained her
expectation of guidance:
I love the subject, but when I have someone to guide me. As long as I have this person.
Some teachers, do not really, cannot really help you, because they don’t give you the
needed information. They just say: “Do it. You’re a university student.”
Interviewer: Did you understand what to do?
Amna: No. We didn’t until we’ve read many research papers and then we started to
understand what’s going on.
Reading many research papers to build an understanding could have been exactly the instructor’s
expectation of independence, but Amna thought it was unreasonable and insufficient guidance.
Another example came from Badria, who expected more guidance from the instructor. She
described an assignment where all the students went to see the instructor individually for
feedback on a draft. After talking with her classmates, she believed the instructor gave them all
similar feedback: that they had not yet appropriately connected the information to the UAE
context. Badria said that information was not in their readings, and so they could not figure it
out. The instructor was pushing them to apply information from one context to their own, and
Badria perceived that the instructor was unfair in not telling them the correct answers.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 108
Furthermore, Badria could not figure out why the instructor did not just tell the students the
information in the first place instead of forcing them to figure it out independently.
Hamda was very clear that she wanted more guidance from the instructor. The instructor
taught using an approach with a lot of questions and answers and discussion. Hamda explained:
I don't like someone asking me many questions, where the answer will be the
explanation. Like for example. You ask me a certain question. Then I give you the
answer. Then you ask me another question related to the answer. And going like this. . . .
And the answers are the explanations are for the whole lecture. It will be really hard to
understand. Because I will answer something. My friend will give another answer.
Everyone will choose their answer. So it will be very hard to understand which answer is
the right one. How can I collect all these answers together to understand the material?
She continued:
Really what I can understand? And sometimes if you are asked to do groups and explain
this material. We will explain it, but it's not how the Ms. explains. It's different. I like to
understand from the Ms., not from the girls. (Hamda)
She wanted the instructor to summarize the information for her, give her keywords, and “give the
explanations in a straightforward way,” and only use student discussion to provide possible
examples.
Jamila’s desire for more guidance involved an instructor who did not allow in-class time
for practice examples and exercises. She explained an example in which the instructor gave an
elaborate demonstration on the board with many pieces of information that she found difficult to
follow, and then urged students to “note it down” and “not forget,” followed by “any questions?”
She was unsure how to approach asking questions about it, let alone practice independently, and
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 109
so she felt stuck and frustrated. She believed if there were more time in class for practice
exercises, it would help her to get the guidance she wanted when she needed it. She explained an
interaction between the teacher and the class, and how she tried to navigate getting what she
wanted:
Jamila role playing: Teacher: Did you understand?
Class: Yes.
Teacher: If you have a question, just ask me.
Jamila to the interviewer: Like how can we like ask a question if we didn’t try it by
ourselves? And when I tried to tell the professor that the way he explain the things for us,
it doesn't suits me. He said, well, this is my fault now. And I’m like I don’t want to say
anything more because my grade is on edge [in this] class.
So while Jamila is searching for more support, she senses that she is not meeting the instructor’s
expectations, and given the power relationship of the instructor being the one to grade her, she
pulls back on looking for support.
Although the first few incidents in this theme indicate the instructors want the students to
be more independent, in other incidents it seems participants do not think their instructors’
expectations on assessments are fair. Zeinab was frustrated with an examination that she felt had
many irrelevant questions and did not allow her to get credit for what she had learned:
Even if I do my best, it would not be recognized. Absolutely not. That was like, it was an
absolute feeling that I had because I did try. I tried so much. (Zeinab)
She seemed confident that she had understood the material but felt the assessments did not allow
her to get the grade she felt she had earned. Another participant, Jamila, thought that the
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 110
assessment questions were tricky and not connected to the lessons, almost as though the
instructor were intentionally trying to confuse the students. For example:
It was like in words and he didn't specify the thing he want from the question. Like “does
this happened to this,” or like “something would happen if you do like this?” Not
calculate. Okay. Which part this is, from which lesson that I took such a thing? Like the
statistic are all similar lessons. Like how could I memorize thing from here, and thing
from here, and here? And I should like figure out which one is this? Like, I can’t. Like,
he’s just, like, confusing us a lot. (Jamila)
Another example involved Nadia, who described an exam in an accounting course which
she did very poorly on. She explained she found the classroom instruction was not making sense,
but students would not tell the instructor they did not understand. As the semester progressed,
she started relying heavily on YouTube videos and the textbook to figure out the topics that did
not make sense in class. She failed the exam, as did most of the class. There was a brief point
after the exam when the class attempted to give the instructor feedback that they were not
understanding. The instructor tried to modify her approaches, but it did not seem to help much
because her explanations were still too complicated, and the class went back to pretending they
understood.
From several of these incidents, it seemed to me that participants were viewing the
responsibility of working through challenging, ambiguous material as the role of the instructor
and not of the student, which caused tension in the teacher–student relationship.
Demotivated by feedback (4/18).
There were some instances of participants finding feedback from their instructors
demotivating, leading them to disengage. Afra described an experience when she got feedback
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 111
from the instructor about what she needed to correct but instead of it helping her learn, it
discouraged her and further, she viewed it as though the instructor was enjoying finding her
mistakes.
But you know, it’s maybe the treatment of the teacher that makes you think you are
stupid, or you don’t understand the thing. Even though you understand, even though you
can do it by your own and everything, but the way the treatment and the way she looks at
every mistake you do is a happiness for her. . . . I felt disappointed. I felt bad. I didn't like
the subject. . . . Maybe no good feedbacks make you feel sad . . . I was excited . . . what I
really was excited about, and then everything is like a disappointment which made me
hate the things. (Afra)
It is unfortunate to think the instructor is happy each time she finds an error, but Afra’s
perception and feeling are genuine. Rather than Afra seeing the feedback as an opportunity to
learn, she was demotivated by it. Another example of a participant demoralized by feedback was
Aisha. When the instructor gave feedback that her initial topic choice for a paper was not
suitable for the assignment, Aisha’s perspective was: “She don’t care about what I like. She
care[s] what she like.” The process of receiving negative feedback from an instructor seemed to
be disheartening for several participants, and they questioned the instructor’s motivation for
giving it.
Alienated relationship (4/18).
An instructor needed to maintain a relationship with the students, and if there was a crack
in that relationship, some participants were more likely to disengage or be discouraged. An issue
that caused a problem for the participants in the relationship was often a small comment,
decision, or action by the instructor.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 112
Moza disclosed that an instructor made a discriminatory remark about Emirati women
and that ruined her respect for him as a teacher. He said that Emirati men were taking out loans
that were beyond their means to meet Emirati women's demands for expensive items. As such,
he said it was the Emirati women’s fault the men were getting into debt, which she found
offensive. She said that nobody attempted to correct him at the time, but she disengaged in class
discussions from that point forward, noting the power relationship meant she would not approach
the issue:
And at the end of the day, he is an instructor. We just wanna finish the course, get a good
mark, and move on. (Moza)
Afra had struggled when an instructor denied her request for flexibility on a deadline. It was not
so much that the instructor said no, but she said it in an insensitive way:
But sometimes she’s not sensitive, I think. Like I know it’s not your responsibility as a
teacher to care about me, or to care about my problems, but at least like some situations,
understand. You know? Some situations. Yeah, some situation, you want understanding .
. . you have to be little bit sensitive to us. Especially when we have something really
important. . . . You can refuse it in nicer way. (Afra)
After the instructor insensitively declined her request to attend an extracurricular event, she
thought was important, she shut down for the rest of the course because of what she perceived as
insensitivity. The student–teacher relationship is an important one for many participants’
university learning, and when there was a crack in it, disengagement followed.
Overall, the teachers’ characteristics and actions have a powerful impact on their
engagement and disengagement in learning from the perspective of participants. Teachers could
possibly support their engagement through positive feedback, enthusiasm, and encouraging
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 113
approaches, but at the same time they could hinder their engagement by not providing as much
guidance as expected, giving negative feedback and at times alienating the relationship with
students.
Engaged: Social supports—peers, family (13/19).
Family (8/19).
Many participants (8) indicated they received support or assistance from their family
members as part of their engaged incidents. As an example, Hessa, Laila, and Nadia said their
family supported them by listening to their ideas or asking about their experiences. Aisha and
Khadija explained that having sisters who were working, and so had expertise, helped them with
their projects. Amna sought historical information about the UAE that she needed for her
assignment from her father. Afra indicated that one of the reasons she wanted to succeed with
her engaged incident was to make her parents proud. So overall, family support for participants
in their engaged incidents may have been quite passive (like listening) or quite active (in helping
to seek out information), or perhaps even a motivating factor (to make them proud).
Peers (6/19).
Many participants (6) explained how having a group of interested and motivated friends
helped support their engagement. For Khadija and Reem, having friends in class helped them to
clear up misunderstandings or issues with concepts discussed in class or on assignments. Hind
went further when describing the need for these friendships and pointed out that the
encouragement from close friends in class motivated her to do better. Jamila found with friends
in class it made her want to continue in-class discussions even after class. Salma indicated the
family-like support from her peer tutors was essential and a key aspect of why she wanted to be
involved in the peer-tutoring program.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 114
Mariam brought a further interesting angle to the importance of peers and was
particularly appreciative of an instructor who supported all the students in a large class to get to
know each other. She found it important to have supportive friends in class, but at the same time
she struggled to meet people. She found that an instructor who continually mixed students and
encouraged them to participate in discussions and debates helped her to make new friends and
find support. The reassurance of peers to help with understanding difficult material or just to
provide encouragement was clearly important, even though it was not always easy to establish
these relationships.
Engaged: The right mix of a group (9/19).
For a series of engaged incidents about coursework, finding a suitable mix of individual
or group work seemed to be vital for participants’ engagement. Khadija was particularly
motivated when she was able to work by herself rather than with a group because she was very
interested in the topic. She felt she would work more diligently on the assignment independently,
and her standard of work was higher than anyone else’s. Therefore, she did not want group
members to freeload and get an unearned grade, so part of the important factor for her being
engaged was working individually. Other participants mentioned choosing to collaborate with
other students with whom they had had a previous working relationship (Badria, Hamda,
Mariam, all upper-year participants). This familiarity allowed them to get the work done
efficiently and without group co-operation issues. Mariam explained she had an established
group of six classmates and they had a scheme for forming groups for group work. They had
agreed on grouping depending on the requirements to work as pairs, threes, or as a larger group
of six. She explained it was a group of students she could trust to do their work and this evolved
because of the social “loafing” issue described by Khadija. Mariam stated:
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 115
I can trust myself. In a university college, I prefer doing my own work because I in [sic]
people I cannot trust them because there were people that didn’t work. And then there are
people that are responsible, then I like doing work before and getting it done. But now in
this major, since I knew that they are my friends and I know them since like two years
and a half now, so like, you know, we have that base. We can trust each other that
eventually their work is going to done and everyone is going to do everything equally, so
that's why I prefer group work. Like when you are overloaded, you want your work to be
divided. You don’t want to do the whole thing alone. So I think the key is to have to find
people that you can trust. (Mariam)
I found that group work in some of the engaged incidents, particularly with the upper-year
participants, had high levels of trust, co-operation, and well-defined and understood roles.
Some earlier-year participants described groupwork as a part of their engaged incidents
as well, although the positive aspects seemed to be less about how they co-operated and worked
well together, and more about how they had managed to divide the workload equally and
everyone did their part (Aisha, Reem, Nadia), which meant things went well. Taking Nadia as an
example, she mentioned in her engaged incident that the team members were all given roles as
part of the assignment and since they were clear on what to do and they all took their role
seriously, they were able to achieve a high grade (an essential outcome for her). So for some
participants earlier in their program, group work was deemed successful when the group
members shared the task equally and all participants took responsibility for their work.
The level of interest and knowledge of the rest of the group members seemed vital to
some participants’ successful engagement. Amna mentioned that initially she had not found her
group project topic very interesting, but the enthusiasm of one of her group members was
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 116
infectious and helped her to find it thought-provoking. Afra, who was participating in a research
group of students, faculty, and professionals, felt freer to express herself in this group compared
with groups of students at her level in the program. When she participated in group work in her
coursework, she felt her peers were reluctant to disagree or correct her, out of fear of hurting her
feelings. However, in this mixed group, everyone had different expertise, and she felt free to say
whatever she thought without concern for anyone’s feelings, knowing she would be corrected if
someone more knowledgeable thought she was wrong. Afra’s experience, which was in an
extracurricular project, combined with the other students’ experiences with coursework projects
and assignments, indicated that only a small number of groups became high-functioning learning
groups, and more often became used to dividing up a large task.
Disengaged: Social supports—peers, family (4/18).
Family and friends featured in some of the disengaged incidents as negative forces.
Participants reported two negative responses from mothers. Khadija’s mother was frustrated that
she was spending so much time while she was at home on her laptop, thinking that she should be
able to finish her studying at the university. Khadija felt the pressure from her mother to spend
less time on her schoolwork while at home but then in class was regularly told by instructors she
was expected to spend more time outside of class studying. Nadia reported a similar situation
where her mom was frustrated by the amount of time she was spending studying, mainly because
it was not resulting in high marks. Nadia’s incident was about a class she was failing because she
did not understand the content in many lectures. She explained the tension:
And my mom told me too. You are working hard and you’re studying a lot and you’re not
helping me in cleaning the house and stuff like that. You don’t do your chores in the
house and . . . Why don’t get like even B or C? Why getting F? Like you studied for
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 117
nothing. I was like, mom, don’t like pressure . . . It is not like I’m not the . . . . She said
then go to the director of the college and tell her like this, this and this. I said to her,
mom, she’s kind of like a new teacher. I mean it’s kind of hard. (Nadia)
Both Khadija and Nadia seem to be balancing differing expectations between what their
mothers think about the time they are spending on schoolwork, and the amount of time
instructors expect. It is noteworthy how rarely participants reported reaching out to family or
friends when they were struggling with disengagement.
Disengaged: Dysfunctional groups (3/18).
I found common factors in some of the disengaged incidents when a group of students
needed to work co-operatively and for some reason they did not. Some had disinterested group
members, which affected the work. For example, Hind was part of a group paper writing project,
and the group members tried to meet early to prepare, but they often ended up chatting and
laughing and avoiding the work. This enjoyable procrastination meant the group left the paper
too late to be able to complete it well. Moza had a problem with her group, when there were a
couple of group members who did not participate as they should have. This meant she carried
more than her share of the workload for the planning and written part of the assignment. When it
came time for the group members to work together on the final product (a volunteer placement),
these two members were disruptive and unprepared, and Moza was embarrassed by their
behaviour, ruining the experience for her. Participants often reported issues with uneven group
work participation or interest hindering their experience.
This section concludes the social themes that participants related about what other people
did to support or hinder their engagement. They mentioned the supportive characteristics of the
teacher, factors that made group work function well, and support from peers and families as
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 118
positive influences; issues with teacher guidance, feedback and relationships, discouraging
family members and dysfunctional groups as influences led towards disengagement.
Wishlist
The final portion of the ECIT interview asked participants to create a wish list of what a
future teacher could do to support their engagement with learning. I sorted the wishes into three
main areas: (a) instructor behaviour, (b) assessment, and (c) curriculum. The total number of
items and the participant frequencies of wish-list items are shown in Table 6.
Table 6
Wish List Items with Frequencies
Focus Items Frequency
Teacher characteristics and actions 40 18
Relational aspects 17 12
Teaching approach 14 12
Language 9 6
Assessment 22 13
Assessment type 9 9
Autonomy related to assessment 7 7
Assessment timing 5 5
Curriculum 4 4
Teacher characteristics and actions (18/19).
All but one participant made wishes concerning things that an instructor could do to help
them be more engaged with their learning. The participants spoke about three main themes: (a)
instructor relational approach, (b) instructor language use, and (c) instructor teaching approach.
Instructor relational approach (17/19).
Most participants offered wishes about minor relational or technical aspects that they
wished instructors did to support their engagement. Sheikha at first just described this as wanting
instructors to “be polite,” meaning that she wanted instructors to show an interest in whether or
not the students were interested. She said it did not seem to matter to some instructors if they
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 119
held the attention of students in the class, alluding to the fact that she wanted instructors to spend
time building rapport. Wafa asked that instructors take the time to learn and use names, as it
helped her feel as though she “existed” in the class. Sheihka went one step further and asked that
instructors notice good work and encourage it (not just correct students who are off-task or not
working hard). Amna, Reem, Wafa, and Nadia all wanted instructors to take the time to listen
and empathize with student needs, particularly for extensions if there was a legitimate reason. As
Nadia stated, “And kind of being, like, little bit gentle with students. Because we students
leaving our families aside and many things and come to university to study, not because of
playing.” Generally, participants wanted their instructors to build rapport by connecting with
them, empathizing and responding to them as individuals.
Some interesting examples emerged as participants discussed technology and its positive
or negative potential for connection. Aisha had an embarrassing experience when she got
negative verbal feedback on some writing in a one-on-one discussion during class time and was
upset that other students could overhear it. Therefore, she wished that feedback on writing be
given online, because it was private. Jamila mentioned frustration when instructors did not
respond to emails (the example was a time she was looking to meet the instructor outside office
hours), perhaps further indicating wanting to feel heard.
Several wished for a balance between their instructor being strict and being what they
perceived as unkind. They explained they wanted the instructor to show that some things
mattered to them, that they had standards and they expected the students to be able to meet them,
but that they were not “just mean” (Wafa, Afra, Nadia). Afra spoke of a past instructor who was
strict but explained the reasoning behind the things she was strict about, so it helped the class
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 120
understand the reason why, and it was not just the teacher choosing to be mean. The desire for
friendliness as well as high expectations was apparent.
Afra described an instructor she had that had made it safe to disagree with her,
welcoming negotiation and differing opinions, even on sensitive topics. Based on this, she
wished for future instructors who would let her disagree with them without punishing her. She
stated (discussing the previous instructor):
She was not very sensitive with giving me bad marks if I’ve said something against what
she is thinking, against her principles, against her. Like I have my own principles, she
have her own principles. So some teachers . . . take it sometimes so personal, which
annoys me. Like I can’t say my opinion. I have to shut up. I have to [be] very lovely to
the teacher, even though . . . I’m not agreeing with her. (Afra)
Afra believed she has had instructors with whom she could not safely voice her opinion, or her
opinion might not be respected, and she wished for openness in the future.
Mariam described a wish for an instructor who meets students “where they are at.” She
described herself and her classmates as “baby chicks” who are “just being born” and the
instructors, particularly new ones to the UAE, as the “big ones with the PhDs.” She said:
We understand that they’re smart enough, but they make us also feel that we’re so, too,
like you know, we’re like stupid sometimes. I know that they don't mean it because
they’re just fresh and they just want to give information out, but that's also for us like,
what she said? What he's saying? Like what’s that? So I think in a way they need
background information. (Mariam)
She had an experience with a new-to-the-country, inexperienced instructor whom she
found very difficult to understand. After telling the instructor she did not understand, the
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 121
instructor treated her as though she was not smart. A couple of participants (Afra, Sheikha)
wished that their instructors had more expertise in their field in the UAE, because then they
could draw examples from their research or experience in a way that was relevant.
There was some disagreement between wishes, as far as the instructor reminding students
about due dates and tasks and breaking large assignments into smaller parts. Amna wanted
instructors to give reminders on due dates regularly, and give students staged assignments with
intermediate feedback check-ins on what needs to be improved, rather than giving them a one-
time assignment submission. However, Laila found this kind of approach frustrating and clearly
did not want to be “babied” in such a way. Laila gave an example of an instructor who trained
the class to become independent and self-reliant, and after that experience, she found the other
approach insulting.
Instructor language (14/19).
Many participants made wishes for instructors to be conscious of the level of difficulty of
the language they spoke and keep their explanations as simple as possible. Several mentioned
instructors using language that was more challenging than seemed necessary, and this meant that
some students in the class could not understand (Hamda, Wafa, Nadia). Mariam requested
summaries of critical ideas from lectures, so the ideas discussed are clear (rather than her taking
notes). Hamda and Wafa preferred that instructors attend to visual learning styles, possibly
because of issues they have had understanding the instructor’s language or reliance on lecturing.
Moza, Mariam, and Amna said they found videos were a good way to help everyone understand,
perhaps because the imagery helps comprehension and interest beyond only verbal explanations,
or that it helped to be able to play it as many times as needed to understand. Hamda expressed
frustration when instructors gave her activities where they expected her to read information in
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 122
class and then summarize it. She said she was too slow a reader to be able to handle this type of
activity and would prefer the readings be given in advance rather than in class. There was a wide
variety of wishes concerning the instructor being conscious of the level of language they were
using and expecting from students.
Instructor teaching approach (9/19).
Many participants expressed their wishes for instructors to use active and innovative
approaches in their classes to maintain engagement. Jamila explained she sleeps when an
instructor lectures from the beginning to end of class, and stated:
Like okay, they innovate lots of technologies and like they innovate phones and so on,
they even reach to the moon, but they didn’t thought [sic] like a new ways, like to
innovate new ways to having lectures? (Jamila)
The country and the university are both continually investing in projects related to innovation,
but she would like to see more innovation in her learning environment. Mariam analyzed that
lecturing as a strategy is not necessarily suitable in the PFU context:
It’s not like we're spoiled or we're not smart enough, but you know, different places had
different strategies. Like you know maybe from where he came, that strategy work on
them, but it doesn't work on us. (Mariam)
Afra and Khadija both mentioned they are sometimes hesitant but appreciate it when an
instructor makes them participate in class, and therefore wished for instructors to require
participation; for example, calling on students directly, or having students work in groups and
then calling on the groups to answer questions. Zainab and Moza wanted instructors to use more
activities alternately with lecturing.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 123
Many wished for class activities that required students to work in groups and get to know
each other. Wafa made a point of saying she was grateful when the instructor put students into
groups (rather than making them choose) for class activities, and then gave them a couple of
minutes to introduce themselves to each other. This activity gave her the chance to get to know
others in the class and decide whether she would like to work with them in the future. Hessa
requested the instructor help the students in the class get to know each other and not assume that
everyone knows everyone else. They thought taking time as a part of the class activities to give
everyone the opportunity to introduce themselves helps with group work in the future. Nadia
suggested that on the first day of class, instead of just handing out the syllabus and letting
everyone go, take the time to do some introductions so everyone can get to know one another.
She would also like the instructor to ask about students’ preferences and what they want out of
the class. Overall, there were wishes to consciously build a learning environment in which
students get to know one another to be able to learn together.
Some participants requested teaching approaches that connected the material to the UAE
or practical activities that they might use in future work. Jamila stated:
We want to get engaged more in practical things rather than just working in [on] papers,
then we are shocked in our work when we like first attending for the job, and they're
saying do something that[is] not related to paper writing work, and I'm just oh, I didn't
have an idea and such thing in the university. (Jamila)
Badria and Afra mentioned the importance of going on field trips off-campus to see the type of
situation they might see in their future workplaces, and how they would like to see more of these
incorporated. Finally, Salma, who spoke about her involvement in extracurricular activities for
her engaged incident, wanted to see higher participation from students at field trips and off-
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 124
campus events, because these experiences had been so vital to her learning. In general,
participants wished for active teaching approaches that connected with real-world, UAE-based
situations, and the opportunity to get to know their classmates.
Assessment (13/19).
Thirteen participants made wish-list requests relating to assessment. These wishes related
to three main areas: (a) types of assessment, (b) autonomy related to assessment, and (c)
assessment timing.
Assessment type (9/19).
Participants expressed desires about the clarity, type, or style of assessments that
instructors might give them in the future. Amna and Sheikha both requested clarity, when the
instructor tells us “what you really want” (Amna), suggesting that assessments from her
perspective were not transparent and asked one thing, but wanted another. They also wanted to
make the assessments achievable for the students and sought clear assessment criteria with a
rubric.
There were some wishes expressed on the format of quizzes and exams, which had
recently changed following a new policy. Through an administrative decision, all students took
all exams in an online format (instead of paper-based), and multi-section courses had to use some
common assessments between sections. Hessa, Nadia, and Reem all expressed problems they
experienced when writing online exams: they lost work through computer glitches, they found
the style of question problematic (not being able to show work in math), and small errors in
spelling which meant they got questions incorrect because the computer automatically marked
the quizzes. Badria was frustrated with the common assessment for her course because she felt
the instructor had rushed to cover all the topics that would be on the joint test, and she preferred
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 125
that they could slow down to really learn the material rather than rush to keep up with a faster
teacher on the other campus. However, Hessa explained that she did not feel empowered to
disclose these negative impacts with anyone other than students:
And, like, other students have like problems with the whole process . . . but they're scared
to talk about it. One student said that she did, like, tell the student . . . centre or something
about the issue but they said that it's the new thing still we can't do anything about it you
have to deal with it so I was like I can't go and like tell my problem because it's not that
important. (Hessa)
So, some of the participants had issue with changes to assessment policy (moving assessments
online, and common assessments between course sections) but they did not feel empowered to
discuss the issues or feel that instructors would hear their complaints.
Several participants expressed wanting assessments more authentic in form. Afra wanted
exams on real-world applications of material rather than on memorization. Hind wanted more
learning that linked to trips off-campus, as it helped her connect the ideas more easily than
abstract lectures. Moza wanted to see more exciting formats for writing, using an example of a
writing assignment when she was to write a letter from the perspective of a historical figure, or
another where she produced an iBook; she found these shifts in format made the topic much
more interesting than the usual research paper. Although not quite the idea expressed by the
others, Jamila requested that writing is kept to a minimum in assignments because "What’s the
purpose of writing if no one will read? This is my point of view,” suggesting that she would like
to see a greater connection with a real-world audience for her assignments.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 126
Autonomy related to assessment (7/19).
Several participants wanted to have instructors offer students more choice and control
over assessment, mainly when related to the topic they were to undertake work on for projects or
papers. There were several reasons for this, related to creativity and interest. Sheikha stated:
Don't limit creativity. Because like everyone in different personalities, they have a
different vision and something. And I always use the example of the seasons. Everyone
looks at the year in different ways. Like people love fall and people love winter so don't
limit people. I find in our university they limit us a lot. . . . We could do better if we
choose our topic. (Sheikha)
Amna, Zeinab, and Hessa wanted the instructor to let them design their project or select their
topics to keep it more interesting for them. Aisha and Reem wanted the freedom to choose
projects that played to their strengths and helped them build different skills. For example, they
explained that some students are good at presentations and others are not, so if students could
choose the assessment method, they would select one that matched their skill set. Badria wanted
a combination of both, when she could choose her topic and a way to show she had learned it,
because “we are big enough” to manage it. Many thought that choosing topics from a list was not
choice enough, and said they wanted the opportunity for more input on how they could
demonstrate what they had learned.
Assessment timing (5/19).
Several participants wanted changes in the way assessments were spaced out over the
semester. So, for example, Amna and Badria questioned why all the courses have the
presentations and projects due at the end of the semester, and why not have some of them
earlier? Jamila stated that at the end of the semester:
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 127
It’s like all like just submit, submit, submit . . . I’m not gonna learn from such a project if
you’re like just rushing me and want me to submit things that you want to hear from me.
Like I want to learn as well, like not just giving you the things that you want to hear. We
want to feel that we are engaged in our projects, not just doing the projects for showing
up. (Jamila)
So, participants suggested balancing assessments between courses, rather than heavily loading
the end of the semester. Hamda did not mind that projects were at the end of the semester, but
she asked that instructors give a full explanation of them at the beginning (it seemed most of the
time it happens mid or end of the semester). Participants wanted instructors to be conscious of
the semester as a whole, and know they were involved in other courses which have similar
deadlines, so keep that in mind for their course schedule.
Curriculum (4/19).
Some wishes involved the program curriculum. Salma, who was a transfer student,
wanted changes in the general education program. She explained that at her previous university,
students got to choose from a list of 20 or so optional courses, and they would select ones they
thought were interesting. This selection gave students a better attitude in the classes than she was
seeing in her classes at PFU, she reasoned, because they had chosen them. She discussed a
general course that she had taken, and since all the students were required to take the course,
some felt forced to be there and did not find it interesting. This situation made it hard for her,
because she was interested and wanted the other students to give it a chance. She said:
So it's set in the program. So you didn’t get to choose the only topics that put you
passionate about, you just have to go with the university forcing you to go that way.
(Salma)
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 128
Laila found that, in her program, she was taking too many courses that she saw as too
broad and not entirely related to her major, which she saw as problematic. Then there were other
courses she thought were mainly related to her major, that were so dense they were rushed. She
was not able to learn the material as well as she'd like to, because the instructor covered so much
information with no time for all of it to “sink in.” She stated:
There are a lot of it. I mean we do learn a lot, but then it's not about what we learned in
class but what you learn after the course is over. So I mean if the information is too
dense, what are we going to learn about it? We only get study for the exam. Then nothing
is going right to our head. (Laila)
She was concerned that for the topics in her major, she was doing too much rushed, surface
learning just to be able to write exams, but would not be able to remember the information after
she completed the course. So, she wanted a slower pace for the courses related to her major.
In summary, it seemed participants were looking for ways to be able to spend more time
in courses and working on assignments related to things they were interested in, which was
conceivably their major.
The wish-list items varied from discrete seemingly minor behaviours that a teacher might
undertake, to broader issues such as assessment policy. There seemed to be frequent discussion
of the need to modify content and information for the UAE context, which included attending to
the second-language environment, and treating students respectfully and with empathy.
The purpose of this section was to draw together the emerging themes from the data. A
variety of themes related to personal and social factors for both engagement and disengagement
were reported, as well as the wish-list items. Finally, I complete the cross-comparison of the
incidents.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 129
Phase 3: Cross-comparison of Incidents
The final phase of my thematic analysis consists of a cross-comparison of incidents. In
this process I will place the incidents into (a) antecedents (things that happened before), (b) the
incident itself, and (c) the impacts. The engaged, disengaged and wish-list themes will be
summarized to bring together all the data.
I undertake this part of the analysis cautiously because the focus of the study—
engagement in learning—is inherently complex, and the perspectives of participants vary.
Engagement can be cyclical and build momentum, meaning with the right conditions in place, an
incident of engagement can happen and the impact could be positive, which might lead to further
engaged incidents. However, it can also work in the opposite direction with the wrong conditions
in place leading to an incident of disengagement, with the participant withdrawing effort, leading
to further disengagement. Therefore, it is an oversimplification for me to present the data in
linear form, as I need to conjecture what the antecedent-incident-impact relationship is when the
relationship, even in the interviews, is rarely seen as linear by the participants. Nevertheless, it is
valuable to see some aspects of the incidents through this lens.
Antecedents
The antecedents, or what needed to exist before either engagement or disengagement,
related primarily to the participants’ interest level, or the instructor. When explaining factors that
participants believed kept them personally engaged, they often reported their interest in the topic.
When participants had some choice in their topics or were supported to find something that
interested them, they were in a much better position to put time and effort into the learning.
When participants reported disengaging because of a lack of interest, it was for varied reasons
including finding the topics irrelevant, repetitive (something they had learned previously), or
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 130
finding the material irrelevant in the UAE context. Participants reported disengaging when they
could not ascertain the relevance of coursework, or when assignments were seen almost as
busywork to produce something that the teacher wanted. Issues with the level of language
showed up strongly as a precursor to disengagement. Participants reported struggling to
understand the language many of their instructors used, finding it difficult to engage with
academic readings and complex textbooks, and many found writing assignments challenging.
It was clear that support or resistance from peers could be a forerunner to varying levels
of engagement. Having a group of motivated, interested peers was helpful in learning difficult
material independently from the instructor, as noted by Reem who created study groups or
Jamila who learned a lot from discussions with her peers after class. Being able to complete
group work with trusted, interested, enthusiastic members could shift a participant towards
engagement. For example, I point to the upper-year students who had found ways to achieve
groupwork efficiently. In contrast, turning to the case of Amna, who did not find her group topic
particularly interesting, she found a group member so enthusiastic that she engaged
unexpectedly. When groups functioned well, it is often a precursor to engagement.
However, having to work in groups where other members did not participate fully, did
not maintain a high standard of work, or did not do the tasks they committed to, was extremely
frustrating and could push a participant like Moza to withdraw from anything but compliantly
checking the boxes of the assigned work. Another example was Khadija who decided to
complete a group project by herself because she did not want to risk working with someone who
did not do a good job. Following this idea, some participants said they struggled to get to know
other students, and they were not often given opportunities to build relationships that might lead
to productive teamwork. When participants needed to work with fellow students—either as part
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 131
of the assigned coursework or as informal support—it was clear that the social group and how
well it was functioning could be a precursor to positive or negative engagement.
The participants’ reports showed family played a minor role as an antecedent to their
level of engagement. Given the context, all participants were unmarried and living with their
parents and siblings, or newly married. When participants spoke about their experience of being
engaged in their learning, many talked of their family members taking a passive, supportive role
in terms of listening to their ideas, although sometimes they were more active when more
experienced siblings offered direction or assistance, or when an assignment required participants
to seek traditional knowledge that only older family members would know.
When discussing the experience of disengagement, two participants recounted that their
mothers were frustrated with them for spending so much time at home doing homework and so
discouraged their efforts. The participants seemed to frame this more as a misunderstanding by
their parents and said it had a somewhat neutral impact on their engagement, neither helping nor
hindering it. Further, there was an absence of support from family when participants discussed
being disengaged, perhaps hinting that they were choosing not to look for help at home in these
cases.
However, from the perspective of the participants, the person other than themselves who
had the most capacity to affect their engagement was the teacher. Participants engaged with the
instructor took a relational approach to their teaching that was empathetic, encouraging and
flexible. When a teacher was enthusiastic, connected information to the UAE, and respected
students’ knowledge and culture, participants responded very positively. When the instructor
approached the class as a group that was learning together, breaking down the teacher–student
hierarchy, and genuinely listening to students and their perspectives without dismissing them,
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 132
engagement followed. Keeping in mind the cultural distance between expat teachers and Emirati
students, participants related wanting to communicate their perspective knowing that it would be
foreign to their teachers and could perceive when the instructor was open to it or not. There were
small interactions that could easily have occurred without the instructor knowing about them, but
which instantly broke the participants’ trust in the teacher, leading to disengagement. These
might have been comments about the country, the way they deducted marks or gave feedback, or
their level of sensitivity to a request for a change in deadline. These “unheard” communications
were often a precursor to disengagement.
The amount of guidance that teachers gave or the level of independence they expected
from participants could be foundational to engagement or disengagement. Developmentally, it
might be reasonable to assume that students early in an undergraduate program might struggle
with the expectation they need to complete a lot of work independently, but it would typically
shift with time as they progress. However, this was not the case with the participants in this
study. In recounting times when they disengaged, there were calls for more guidance from
instructors, from participants in second to fourth year, across all programs. Participants reported
struggling in many situations when instructors pushed them to do things independently such as
complete readings on their own, make inferences about the applicability of material, or undertake
practice activities without supervision. When participants noted that a teacher encouraged
independence, it seemed it was important that the instructor respected the participant's
independent opinions, perspectives and knowledge, rather than that those instances when they
pushed participants to undertake work independently. Many participants in the study would have
gone to public schools in the UAE, often lauded as being very teacher-directed, which may relate
to why participants desired so much guidance. So while there seemed to be a strong interest from
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 133
participants that instructors respect their independent ideas, there was less interest that instructors
should expect independent work from them.
Impacts
In terms of the impact of engaged incidents, participants reported various enhanced and
positive personal developments, such as increased confidence, overcoming shyness, learning to
handle anger, developing empathy, patience, and communication skills as the effects of their
engagement. They discussed their own excitement about the undertaking of and learning new
things for the first time. They explained that when instructors allowed them to make choices
about the work they were undertaking, it helped to develop an interest in the topics they were
learning. When the information helped participants connect to their context, they were able to
build a nuanced understanding of the UAE in relation to the world. It is clear to see that the
impact of being engaged resulted in the development of a variety of positive affective attributes
in participants.
Incidents of disengagement rarely led to introspection but rather to participants
suggesting things the instructor should do differently, from their perspective. Examples included:
assigning easier or less reading or writing, using straightforward language, offering more
guidance, or using more class time for supervised practice, field trips, or activities. Even when
looking at the general incident types when participants reported their experience with being
engaged, only a few connected it to a teaching approach; most acknowledged the elements of the
coursework assignment as the reason. When participants discussed their experience of being
disengaged, more shifted and acknowledged the teaching approach. This suggests a tendency of
participants to describe their reasoning for engagement as something they had authority over, and
disengagement as something the teacher caused.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 134
Wafa had one of the most introspective reactions to a disengaged incident. After
performing poorly on an Arabic presentation, she spiralled into frustration with herself about
how damaging this was to her future in work and as a parent and grandparent—it was as if her
native language was lost. However, most other participants who discussed performing poorly
were more likely to mention that the assessment was unfair or the instructor was too hard to
understand or wanted something inappropriate. Introspection about the reasons for
disengagement is an important quality that could be vital to support learning.
Feedback from the instructor influenced the participants’ engagement both positively and
negatively. Positive feedback from the instructor on work that participants had completed well,
or an instructor noticing a participant’s effort in class were factors mentioned that kept
participants motivated. At the same time, feedback that drew attention to work that needed to be
improved often caused strong emotional reactions, and participants reported being upset with the
instructor and demotivated as a result of it, at times even questioning the instructor’s character or
intentions in offering feedback. It seemed as though when some participants were pushed to
improve through feedback, they reacted with very little individual agency, and rather blamed the
instructor for not offering enough guidance or just wanted the instructor to give them a decent
grade. The intention of feedback is presumably to help students learn but instead caused many
participants to withdraw, which is problematic.
Based on the experiences reported in the incidents described above, a strong impact on
engagement is based on a participant’s willingness or ability to work as a part of a team. Several
disengaged incidents related to group work going poorly, with social “loafing” students not
undertaking their tasks seriously. This resulted in an uneven effort among the group members,
and a high level of frustration for the members who had to do more work than their share. Even
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 135
when group work was part of an engaged incident, it was considered successful when
participants were able to divide up work evenly, and everyone participated. Only a few examples
of group work became genuinely collaborative, but when it did happen it encouraged teamwork
skills. Afra’s example of working in a multidisciplinary research group with students, faculty,
and ministry staff was an example of independent, engaged work as a part of a team, which
resulted in her developing a range of skills. However, many examples demonstrated that
engaging in group work did not build teamwork skills.
Peer support, previously mentioned as an antecedent, could also be considered an impact
of engagement or disengagement. Peers groups provided informal support in some of the cases
of disengagement particularly as resources to help understand the material when participants did
not understand their instructor. Further, family members in two cases discouraged the homework
participants were undertaking particularly if they were not achieving high grades, presumably
discouraging engagement.
Chapter Summary
In this chapter I presented the findings from the study in three phases, as suggested by
Holloway and Schwartz (2014). I started by giving a general description of the data set, which
including the demographics of the data and the participants’ definitions of engagement. I
included information about the frequencies of the incident types, with 19 engaged and 18
disengaged incidents. Next, I reported details about the three types of incident focus that
participants selected, which were: (a) coursework assignments, (b) teaching approaches, and (c)
extracurricular activities. Following that, I reported on the major themes, which I will summarize
below.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 136
Participants emphasized that to be engaged, they needed to see the value of new material
to their own lives and when they could not see the relevance to their personal sphere or the UAE
context, it was their primary reason to disengage. They expressed wanting a manageable amount
of autonomy and choice in how to approach their learning, but not so much that they felt lost.
When courses required them to approach topics in a traditional academic manner (for example,
unguided deep reading and lengthy paper writing), participants disengaged, often because of
language-related challenges. Many described expending a lot of effort reading and writing but
still not understanding the material or seeing improvement. They were conscientious in trying to
produce the work the instructor asked for, but when they could not understand or were given
negative feedback, their reactions were quite emotional. Overall, it was a common perception
that instructors did not appreciate how challenging the material was for them or had
unreasonably high expectations.
When a supportive teacher-student relationship formed, however, it was fruitful. A
teacher building connections, offering positive feedback, noticing good work, and being
enthusiastic about their topic were motivating factors. It was important to participants that the
teacher did not behave as the solitary source of knowledge, rather the teacher learned from
students and championed students to develop their own ideas. Participants sought achievable,
fair, authentic assignments when the instructor was clear about what they were looking for and
gave students some independence over selecting their topics. An effective setting for engagement
included a teacher offering a firm structure for learning but at the same time being flexible and
understanding the students’ perspectives and needs. When an instructor misinterpreted the
students’ perspectives, perhaps by assuming cultural stereotypes were true, behaving as though
their viewpoint was superior, or not showing flexibility when students asked for it, it could
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 137
irrevocably ruin the relationship, leading to disengagement. Further, if an instructor offered little
guidance, or feedback that was perceived as negative, the relationship could be damaged beyond
repair.
Another important factor that participants connected to their engagement was when
learning the academic subject material allowed them to develop personally (for example, build
confidence or skills) or experience something interesting for the first time that was relatable and
understandable. Although this type of development (for example, building confidence) was not
likely connected directly to the course’s intended learning outcomes, it was a key part of the
experience of engagement.
Finally, participants’ family and friends could play a supporting role in engagement,
particularly when there was someone who would listen to their experiences and occasionally
offer advice. Sometimes, family and friends did not understand the effort required for academic
success, and this left participants in a difficult position trying to balance the expectations of their
social circle (not to spend time and effort studying) and their teachers (to spend significant time
and effort studying).
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 138
Chapter 5: Discussion
I collected the experiences of the 21 female Emirati undergraduate students studying at
PFU, a federal institution in the United Arab Emirates, to understand their perspectives on what
helped or hindered their engagement in learning. In this chapter, I discuss the overall findings
and their connection to existing research and theory. I demonstrate the ways in which this study
supported current research and added new elements to broaden the understanding of engagement
in learning in the UAE setting. I then discuss the implications of this research for practice,
focusing on instructors and program developers in this context, and make recommendations for
further research.
I have chosen to recount a narrative of one of the participants, Nadia, to start the
discussion. Nadia’s experience carried many elements that were similar to the most frequent
themes of other participants, so her experience is helpful in illustrating the key findings of the
study. In the data analysis, the participants’ incidents of engagement and disengagement were
reduced to their elemental qualities to find common features. However, recounting Nadia’s
complete experience and considering it as a model case will guide the discussion of the
engagement in learning as a whole.
Nadia was a second-year student in the Management Information Systems program. She
had spent a semester in the language preparation program, as had about half of the participants.
She described an engaged student as someone who wanted to participate and share their ideas in
class and listen to the opinions of other students. Part of her interest in coming to university was
not necessarily about gaining knowledge or aiming at a particular career; it was primarily for the
social experience of making new friends. She was fascinated to learn the opinions of other
students even if they were different from hers. For her engaged incident, she discussed her
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 139
participation in a group project when they volunteered in the community. She noted that all five
students in her group were excited to work together and focused on getting a good grade. They
chose to volunteer at a place that supported children with disabilities. Their role was to organize
some activities and games with the children. She had never spent time with anyone with a
disability before. It “opened her eyes” and the experience “reshaped her thinking” about people
with a disability. She enjoyed working with the group members doing something good for
society and ended up getting so involved that she forgot about the grades for the project. She was
particularly enthusiastic that a graduate from the same university was working at the facility and
showed them around. She said that after the experience, she could see herself working there as
well. She struggled to recall any parts of the assignment that were written but could vividly
remember giving a presentation to the class about her experience. She brought up pictures on her
phone of the volunteer placement activities and could clearly articulate how it had changed her
personal views.
Her entire demeanour changed when she described her disengaged incident, shifting from
excited to discouraged. She discussed an accounting course that she found problematic. She
received her first F grades ever on the first two tests, despite “working harder” in the class than
in her other subjects. She was dispirited, but she continued to put in the effort and did not give up
hope; she believed she would do well on the next tests. She spoke to her advisor about dropping
the course but was frightened that it would delay her graduation, so she did not. She empathized
that the instructor teaching the class was new to the UAE and teaching here, and was busy trying
to finish her Ph.D. Nadia found her method of teaching very difficult to understand. The
instructor would review many slides and then ask if everyone understood. The students in the
class would say “yes,” although nobody in the class honestly comprehended. She would study
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 140
the textbook and look up videos to try to learn the material outside the class but was still quite
confused. Nadia discussed a poignant time in the course after the second exam when the
instructor was upset to see such low grades and seemed to come to the class searching for ways
she could help them. Nadia said the students shyly tried to tell her about some of the problems
from their perspective such as finding the material delivery confusing and fast (“When she
explains, maybe to her, she can understand. But to us, no. Students, no. We cannot.”). The
students had a hard time hearing and found the format of the online exams challenging.
However, from her perspective, the instructor “just voided them” by telling the students there
was no flexibility for those details to be changed. Nadia talked about how “students here” really
liked to have a lot of different activities in class to help them understand, but this was not how
this instructor taught. She respected that the instructor had a high level of knowledge in her
subject, but she wanted someone to help the instructor learn how to teach more effectively.
Outside the class, Nadia had pressure from her mother to study less and help more around the
house. Her mother thought it was fine to study if she was getting Bs or Cs, but if she was going
to get Fs, she was studying for nothing. Overall, in her disengaged incident, Nadia painted a
picture of a teacher who did not understand the academic preparation needed for the class, the
level of understanding of the students, or the family pressures they felt. However, rather than
being angry about the experience, she was very respectful of the instructor, knowing she was
new to the country and a bit overwhelmed with the new job, and she wanted her to be given
external support to be a better teacher.
Nadia’s engaged experience exemplifies many of the themes discussed in the findings
chapter, including how important it was for her to experience something for the first time,
develop personally, be allowed to take some agency to choose what she was studying, and be
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 141
able to contextualize what she was learning to her world. She worked with a group of supportive
peers to independently achieve a common goal, the assignment challenged her thinking, and she
came to some new understandings. Importantly, she did not run into language barriers.
Her disengaged experience parallels many of the themes that arose from the data. She had
challenges with the particular teacher and was expecting more guidance than she received related
to the teaching approaches used, and she was confused by the speed at which the instructor
spoke. Nadia believed the teacher dismissed the feedback that she and her classmates tried to
communicate, and while she was respectful of the teacher, she was demotivated by the
experience. Finally, she received challenging feedback from her family, who did not understand
the effort required for academic success, and this left her in an awkward position to try to
balance the expectations of her family (to spend less time and effort studying) and her teacher (to
spend more time and effort studying).
When Nadia discussed her wish list items, it was clear she felt misunderstood by some of
her instructors. She wanted them to be more empathetic and gentler with students and understand
that they were there to learn. She raised the point that she wanted the instructors to get to know
the students better and respond compassionately to their requests. She was often left confused
when instructors wandered off-topic or lectured about abstract topics, so she requested that
instructors use simple language with concrete examples and a teaching style that included
activities rather than lectures as she found this more effective.
Although Nadia’s case exemplified many of the themes, she did not highlight some
common ones. Many other participants underscored the importance of a supportive teacher-
student relationship for their engagement: a teacher who built connections, offered positive
feedback, noticed good work, and was enthusiastic about their topic. It was also important to
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 142
many participants that the teacher did not behave as the sole source of knowledge but preferably
learned from students and championed students to develop their ideas. There was a
disengagement theme that Nadia’s story did not touch on, which related to a lack of interest in
the subject. She appeared to continue to be interested in the topic of accounting, despite the
challenges she experienced; however, for many other participants, the lack of relevance of the
material surfaced as a reason to disengage. I continue to draw on ideas from Nadia’s story, as
well as other participants, as I compare the findings to the scholarly literature.
Comparison to Relevant Scholarly Literature
Briefly, this study sought to find the factors that female Emirati students perceived to
affect their engagement with learning in their undergraduate degree program. Participants
defined their perception of what it meant for them to be engaged, and then selected two personal
experiences to discuss in depth: a time they were engaged, and a time they disengaged with
learning. They included the personal and social factors they perceived to support their
engagement or lead to their disengagement with learning. I was interested in factors that may
have been connected to the broader cultural context. In the following section, I compare my
findings of what engagement meant to participants with how engagement is defined in the
literature. Next, I propose a model to compare the remaining results to the relevant research.
Meaning of engagement
Although definitions of engagement in the literature vary depending on the focus,
elements of nearly all definitions from participants reflected characteristics seen in the research.
For this study, I used the definition of engagement by Bernard (2015), as follows:
A dynamic process marked by a positive behavioural, cognitive, and affective state
exhibited in the pursuit of deep learning. This process is bound by contextual
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 143
preconditions of self-investment, motivation, and a valuing of learning. Outcomes of
student engagement include satisfaction, a sense of well-being, and personal
development. The iterative experience of engagement occurs within a given educational
framework influenced by a broader sociocultural context. (p. 118)
Participants in the study emphasized that being engaged meant being behaviourally compliant
and respectful in the classroom, which meets Barnard’s ideas of a positive behavioural and
affective state. Other participants defined engagement as the positive product of an interaction
between the students in the class, the instructor, and the material. Although not identical, their
description of engagement connects to Barnard’s inclusion of a positive affective state, and the
preconditions of self-investment and motivation. Further, some other participants described
engagement happening when they were empowered to make autonomous decisions about their
learning, which connects again to Barnard’s ideas of the positive product of behavioural,
cognitive, and affective attitudes combined to pursue deep learning. Turning to additional
scholars’ research, Bryson and Hand (2007) discussed that student engagement lies on a
continuum from disengaged to engaged. The participants in the study supported this idea,
describing engagement as a dynamic and changing state rather than a static disposition, as they
discussed a wide variety of external influences that shifted them to the edge of both conditions
(engagement and disengagement). Astin’s (1984) theory of involvement showed the importance
of extracurricular activities in supporting student success. In the study, two participants defined a
highly engaged student as one that is participating in extracurricular activities and they used
extracurricular activities (a campus peer-learning volunteer program, and a faculty-led research
project) as the basis for their engaged incidents. Therefore, although I did not give the
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 144
participants the theoretical definition of engagement, they generated their examples to define it in
ways that aligned with the literature.
Supports and Barriers to Engagement: A Model
A starting point to continue the discussion is to consider a quotation from the literature
review and consider that "every student’s classroom engagement is invariably a joint product of
his or her motivation and classroom supports versus thwarts” (Reeve, 2012, p. 152). To review:
motivation is the intention, engagement is the action, and a variety of environmental incentives
can affect a student’s shift from intention to action. In the engagement research, motivation is
often seen as a precursor to engagement (Christenson et al., 2012), but motivation is only a piece
but not the whole explanation. In the definition used for this study, “contextual preconditions of
self-investment, motivation, and a valuing of learning” (Bernard, 2015, p. 118) are required for
engagement.
Engagement is a multidimensional construct, and research tends to be concerned with the
environmental factors that can be implemented to improve student success. Engagement
“represents aspects of student behaviour and institutional performance that colleges and
universities can do something about” (Kuh et al., 2007, p. 11). So, presuming that the goal is to
“do something” to improve engagement with learning in this context, the model starts by
considering concepts related to motivation—primarily value and efficacy expectations—and then
looks more broadly at the supportive or unsupportive aspects of the environment. The model
builds on the idea that when students “find positive value in a learning goal or activity, expect to
successfully achieve a desired learning outcome, and perceive support from their environment,
they are likely to be strongly motivated to learn” (Ambrose et al., 2010, p. 5).
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 145
The data in this study was based on the self-reported critical incident experiences of both high
and low engagement in learning by female undergraduate students in a federal university in the
UAE. Lawson and Lawson (2013) noted that engagement varies across a number of settings and
researchers should focus on finding what influences students’ engagement choices. As such, the
results offer some contextualized “environmental levers” that, based on the perspective of the
participants, are the contextual factors which, when manipulated, changed their engagement in
learning in this context. As such, I am proposing the model in
Figure 1 that I use to discuss the findings.
Figure 1
Contextualized Model of Engagement Levers
Motivation is generally seen as an internal, private, and unobservable individual
psychological process, while engagement is the external, action-oriented, observable expression
of motivation (Reeve, 2012). Based on this premise, at the centre of the model I have placed a
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 146
female symbol, to signify the individual female student, surrounded by concepts connected with
a common motivational theory: Expectancies-Value theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2001; Wigfield
& Eccles, 2002)(EVT), and radiating outside are the environmental factors that increase or
decrease engagement based on my interpretation of the findings. As such, I use the ideas of value
and efficacy (from EVT) to discuss the four environmental factors that were essential in my data:
(a) accessible language, (b) positive instructor-student relationships, (c) a balance of
independence, and finally (d) personal development and relevance. The following sections of this
chapter discuss factors at the centre of the figure, and then focus on the external “environmental
lever” arrows.
Model centre: Personal experience
In the proposed model, expectancies and values are at the centre of engagement,
emphasizing the need to consider motivation as the internal state of a person. In the EVT of
motivation (Eccles & Wigfield, 2001; Wigfield & Eccles, 2002), “Perceived expectancies for
success and subjective task values both determine motivation and performance on achievement
tasks” (Tibbetts et al., 2015). Put more simply, a student needs to answer “yes” to two key
questions to be academically motivated: “Can I do the task?” and “Do I want to do the task?”
(Barron & Hulleman, 2015). Since academic motivation is the intention that happens before the
action of academic engagement or disengagement, I use these theoretical ideas to make sense of
the “environmental levers” this study found which encouraged the female students to say “yes”
or “no” to the questions of being able and wanting to do the tasks.
Expectancies.
Expectancies are the task-specific beliefs that a person holds about their abilities (Barron
& Hulleman, 2015). Expectancies draw heavily on the theory of self-efficacy, which refers to a
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 147
person’s belief that they can perform a required course of action (Bandura, 1977). Bandura
posited that people use four sources of information to form their sense of self-efficacy: (a)
performance experiences of their own, (b) vicarious experience of others, (c) verbal persuasion
from a trustworthy other, and (d) physical and emotional reactions (Oettingen, 1995).
Further, there are two kinds of belief with efficacy: (a) outcomes expectation (for
example, I believe if I study I will pass the test), and (b) efficacy expectations (for example, I
have the skills to study well enough to achieve an A on the test) (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).
Individuals’ expectation of success is a strong predictor of their eventual achievement of
academic outcomes (Wigfield & Cambria, 2010). Expectance and self-efficacy are an interesting
lens through which to consider the study findings, mainly because many incidents across several
themes hint towards participants having low self-efficacy, and low efficacy expectations.
Value.
Eccles and Wigfield (2002) described four components that make up the subjective value
of a task to a person: (a) attainment value, (b) intrinsic value, (c) utility value, and (d) cost (p.
119). Attainment value is concerned with how undertaking the task would support a person’s
self-worth and identity; intrinsic value is related to the enjoyment the person gets from the task;
and utility value is derived from how well the task relates to the person’s current and future
goals. The fourth point, cost, is considered the negative aspect of engaging in the task, in terms
of the amount of effort or time it will take. Subjective task value is an additional intriguing lens
with which to examine the findings, as many themes suggest that participants found low utility
value, high cost, and little intrinsic value when they were disengaged, and the opposite when
they were engaged.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 148
Cultural Crossing.
Hatherley-Greene (2012a) used an analogy of border crossings to explain the cultural
context of the teaching environment in his study of men in their first year of a foundation
program in Fujairah, UAE (a small emirate on the east coast). In the analogy, male students
needed to leave their “safe space” at home in a predominantly Arabic culture and cross a border
into the “contact zone” that is the learning environment at the college. Instructors enter the
“contact zone” and oversee a predominately “Western” teaching and learning environment. Then
after class, both students and faculty “retreat” to their “safe zones” in their different home
cultures. This model acknowledges the intercultural meeting place that is the context of this
study, albeit with somewhat aggressive language (contact zone, safe zone, retreating). Based on
this idea, I chose to add a layer to the model to represent the requirement of female students to
undertake a cultural border crossing to engage in learning in their undergraduate studies.
Although a cultural context is often shown as an all-encompassing layer that might be visualized
as a broad circle around the whole model (see Kahu, 2013a), I chose to represent it as a constant
permeable zone for female students to navigate through between motivation and engagement in
undergraduate studies.
Objects for engagement.
Recall that I asked the participants in this study to choose examples of times they were
engaged and disengaged in learning, and their cases fell into three broad categories: (a)
coursework, (b) teaching approaches, and (c) extracurricular activities. Consequently, I have
included the positive variations of these categories in the model: (a) applied or relevant
coursework, (b) active teaching approaches, and (c) extracurricular opportunities.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 149
Model levers: Environmental factors
Although motivation, a cultural border crossing and the objects for engagement are
central, the key findings of the study are represented by the arrow “levers” of the model. I
propose that intentionally building expectancies and value connections might support increasing
motivation and subsequently, engagement. I now discuss the arrow “levers” of the model with
this in mind.
Accessible language.
Concerning participants’ perceived ability to undertake academic tasks, there was a
considerable lack of confidence related primarily to language. Perhaps the essence of this pivotal
finding is best explained by a quote from the participant Hamda: “I can’t be engaged with this
material if I don’t understand.” In the context of the university, which is the focus of this study,
the English proficiency of many students is different from many other traditional university
classrooms. For example, the minimum IELTS (International English Language Testing System,
a standardized language examination) entrance score at the institution was an overall band score
of 5.5, while at the University of Calgary it was 6.5 for most programs, and 8.0 for Education
(Calgary, 2019). An overwhelming majority of students were non-native English speakers, and
the levels of language preparation and academic literacy varied widely in a classroom depending
on many factors, including the students’ high school experience in the private or public system,
or taken in primarily English or Arabic (Freimuth, 2014). Given the voluntary recruitment of
participants for this study, it is plausible that only the most engaged female students were likely
to self-select to participate in the interviews. If they were experiencing language issues to this
extent, similar problems are likely to be exaggerated for the less-engaged female students.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 150
A variety of participants expressed low efficacy expectations when they did not believe
they were able to produce the work that was being asked of them at least partially because of
their language skills. There was a perception from experience that they were unlikely to be able
to complete the required work and had almost given up trying. Many said that they did not “like”
to read or write, and at times it was unclear whether they were not interested in the materials or
just felt uncomfortable being unable to produce what was required of them. I suggest that
deliberately building success expectancy such as female students’ self-efficacy alongside
appropriate language support could improve engagement.
Persuasion from a trustworthy other may help to build self-efficacy (Oettingen, 1995);
however, many participants had the impression that instructors did not understand how
challenging reading and writing was for them so did not recognize their efforts. The participants
tended to place the accountability on the instructor to simplify the material, remove requirements
to write, or reduce their expectations of reading. Further, there were examples of highly
emotional reactions to feedback from instructors when participants believed the instructor was
picking on them. In engagement literature, high levels of challenge are often positively
associated with engagement (Strati et al., 2017), but that does not seem to be reflected in these
student perceptions. Particularly with the incidents in this study, perhaps low self-efficacy
combined with weaker academic skills resulted in many participants believing that they did not
have the skills to perform what was being asked of them when tasked with a challenging
assignment.
I use another lens from the engagement (rather than motivation) literature to consider the
reported academic problems female students experienced with language skills in terms of Tinto’s
(1988) theory of integration. In this theory, a student passes through stages of separation,
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 151
transition, and finally integration in the college experience. In the transition stage, the student has
not yet acquired the norms and patterns of behaviour expected at the institution which need to be
navigated for them to succeed. Behaviours such as struggling to understand difficult concepts,
working independently, straining with reading or writing may be considered normal parts of the
student experience from the perspective of the institution and/or instructors, who expect students
will acquire the skills. Melguizo (2011) queried Tinto's theory, stating it neglected the influence
of factors external to the institution. It is plausible to place the responsibility for disengagement
on the students for being unmotivated or having language skills that are too weak to transition
into university. However, this would neglect the external factors of this context: students have
been accepted into the university with a wide range of academic preparation, and the government
is fully funding the cost of their tuition and books. The power of engagement research is that
engagement is a multidimensional construct, encompassing dimensions of influence from the
individual student and the institutional context. It is clear in the data from the participants that
they struggle to integrate in the university experience because of the language barrier, and they
need more and varied support from the institution, particularly their instructors, to help them to
succeed despite the language challenges they reported.
The institution programs expected graduates would be able to communicate effectively in
both English and Arabic. Most of the critical incidents for both engagement and disengagement
centred around courses in English but one disengagement incident, as noted by Wafa, was based
on Arabic. I will expand on this case because it was so starkly different. Although most language
challenges with English hinted that participants did not have the skills and wanted the instructor
to change their expectations; in Arabic, Wafa saw her poor performance as a threat to her
identity. She imagined the future and saw herself as an unfit grandparent because her Arabic was
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 152
weak. Communicating effectively in Arabic had a high attainment value for her, connected to her
social role in her family in a way that communicating in English did not reflect. With this threat
to her identity, she reported independently undertaking work to improve her Arabic skills. From
this, I hypothesize that perhaps performing well in English is not connected to female students’
identity and that increasing engagement might come from helping female students to make closer
value connections.
Balance of independence.
From the data in this study, participants expressed a preference for independence and the
expected roles of teachers and female students that in some cases went unmet. In a traditional
university environment, new undergraduate students would be experiencing independence in a
variety of ways beyond the set curriculum (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005); for example, living
independently, entering into romantic relationships, or undertaking part-time work. All the
participants in the study lived with their parents or husband, and only one had a part-time job.
Participants in this context are not experiencing a move towards independence in many aspects
of their lives like similarly aged undergraduates in traditionally researched contexts such as the
United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom (Leach, 2016). You may recall Amna’s
engaged incident, where she learned how to convince her father to allow her to go shopping
independently for the first time without her brother or family chaperoning, something that would
often happen long before the fourth year of an undergraduate program for most students. As
another example, it would be highly unlikely female students would be involved in a romantic
relationship unless they were engaged to be married, and they would not be living independently
or with roommates; rather, they would be living at home with their parents and family. So, while
there was a clear communication from the participants that they wanted more independence and
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 153
autonomy in their learning environment, it was only a short distance before they felt they were
expected to be “too independent” by their instructors. In the participants’ narratives, there were
frequent examples in which they expected a dependent relationship with the instructor
particularly in a higher education context. They wanted frequent guided practice, feedback, and
encouragement and were frustrated if the instructor did not fulfil their expectations. At the same
time, participants expressed an often-unmet desire for independence, when they wanted more
autonomy and choice. Perhaps the key idea for this study is the recognition that participants
perceived the issue: they both crave independence as they develop as young adults, but they are
heavily dependent on teacher guidance to achieve it.
Hammond (2014), an expert on culturally responsive teaching approaches, noted that a
disproportionate number of culturally and linguistically diverse students are “dependent learners”
because of the educational inequity they have experienced. She stated that they grapple with
becoming independent learners:
Not because of their race, language or poverty. They struggle because we don’t offer
them sufficient opportunities in the classroom to develop the cognitive skills and habits
of mind that would prepare them to take on more advanced academic tasks. (p. 14)
Although Hammond is speaking from a different context (K-12 teaching in the United
States), there are similarly dependent learners evident in this study. Many female students in the
current study will have come through a public-school system that has not adequately prepared
them for the independence that is expected by their university instructors who are typically from
a different context, where expectations of independence are higher. It makes sense, therefore,
that female students are confronted with the challenges of shifting away from being dependent
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 154
learners, and it is an important finding of this study that more developmental opportunities to
encourage independence could help.
The data suggested a tendency of participants to describe their reasoning for engagement
as something they had authority over, and disengagement as something the teacher caused. This
is an interesting finding, particularly in terms of the literature on locus of control. In Rotter’s
(1966) theory, locus of control relates to how much control a person believes they have over the
events that happen in their lives: a belief they have a high level of control would be an internal
locus of control, and a belief that factors outside their control affected the events in their lives
(such as powerful other people or fate) is an external locus of control. Locus of control is usually
seen as a stable trait in a person (either learned or related to personality) (Horst & Jacovidis,
2018). However, by investigating engaged and disengaged experiences by the same female
students, it seems that the same participant regularly showed characteristics of an internal locus
of control when they were describing their experience of being engaged, and an external locus of
control when they were describing being disengaged. When considering locus of control in a
culture outside America (where this theory was developed) “cross-cultural comparisons suggest
that the meaning of control varies by cultural norms and values, and thus the moderating effect
of culture deserves greater attention” (Cheng et al., 2013, p. 153). So, this study suggests that
further investigation is needed on how to support female students to develop an internal locus of
control related to their learning, particularly when they are disengaged.
It is unlikely that it was the intention of the instructors to expect an unachievable degree
of independence from female students, or to intentionally give them too little guidance. This is a
key finding to understand in particular for program and course design, that learning experiences
must understand the context and be designed to scaffold female students to build their skills in
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 155
becoming independent learners over time, because they are not necessarily being built in ways
outside the curriculum (as in a traditional university) and students may have not been adequately
prepared by their K-12 experience.
Positive student-instructor relationship.
Over thirty years ago, Chickering and Gamson (1987) emphasized the importance of
frequent student-faculty contact both inside and outside class as the key to student motivation
and success in undergraduate education. Bryson and Hand (2007) found that relationships with
instructors could affect students’ level of engagement across tasks, courses, programs and their
overall experience of higher education. This study also suggests in the findings that a student’s
relationship to the teacher is the key to engagement. Although there is considerable research on
the key role an instructor plays in student learning, little has been applied in this context. A
recent study on student-teacher relationships at another federally funded UAE institution found
that caring relationships were more important to female students than a teacher’s methods or
content knowledge (James & Shammas, 2018), and this study finds similar perceptions. In a
study on pedagogical approaches in the UAE, Aboudan (2011) made four broad pedagogical
recommendations:
Content (examples and illustrations) that connect with Emiratis’ everyday lives; offering
opportunities for Emirati students to be actively involved in lessons; rewarding student
involvement efforts and engagement; and giving students greater responsibility in
planning and executing the learning process. (p. 133)
The findings of this study support these earlier findings in their entirety. Further, having
an instructor that is enthusiastic about their subject area is commonly aligned with increased
student engagement (Ambrose et al., 2010; Schwartz & Holloway, 2014), and within the UAE
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 156
(Fernandes et al., 2013; Hatherley-Greene, 2012b; Saafin, 2008). The findings from this study
also supported this position. In particular, it seemed that the enthusiasm helped students to find a
sense of wonder in unrelatable subject areas, or instructors who were passionate about their areas
could often make strong links to the UAE context. Although this study supports existing research
on the importance of the teacher, it adds a further nuance to the understanding of this context in
the following ways: (a) the importance of cultural humility, (b) attending to signals for
understanding/misunderstanding, and (c) the favourable and unfavourable consequences of
feedback.
Cultural humility.
In general, participants wanted their instructors to build a rapport by connecting with
them, empathizing, and responding to them as individuals. When teachers took the time to learn
their names and included activities that helped female students get to know each other, it was
much appreciated. Participants wanted their instructors to be flexible in understanding the
multiple demands on them from other courses and from home. They excelled when the teacher
set high but achievable standards and held expectations for them to meet them, but they were
also clear that they did not want the teacher to be “just mean.” The desire for friendliness as well
as a firm guiding hand aligned well with the idea of the “warm but demanding” profile from a
study in another UAE federal institution. This style was the students’ preference, and was
described by Hatherley-Green (2012b) as, “teachers who are emotionally warm and caring but
set high standards of classroom management, behaviour, and academic attainment, as well as
high expectations” (p. 7).
A key part of a teacher-student relationship involves effective communication. Given the
setting of the study, when the female students are primarily from one culture and the teachers are
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 157
from a wide variety of cultures, it is to be expected that there are issues related to intercultural
communication. Although Burkett (2016) provided evidence of UAE expat teachers having
strong knowledge of socio-cultural norms, there is evidence in the findings of participants having
experience with both interculturally competent instructors (Perry & Southwell, 2011) and
instructors lacking cultural humility (Hook et al., 2013). To elaborate, there were reports of
interculturally understanding or competent instructors, when participants identified involvement
with instructors that showed empathy and a curiosity about female students’ experience and
culture. There were instances of instructors that expressed genuine cultural humility, when a
teacher “came to their level,” assumed that they would learn from each other in the class or
genuinely tried to understand what students were trying to communicate despite language
challenges, and it laid a fertile ground for learning. In contrast, there were examples of the
culturally insensitive side, when some participants experienced instructors that acted as though
they were superior, assumed some cultural stereotypes about Emiratis were true, or did not show
empathy for the pressures on the students from their family. Although perceived negative teacher
behaviours are often recalled more intensely than positive ones (Strati et al., 2017), the examples
mentioned by participants described how a seemingly minor misstep or brush-off from the
instructor could be interpreted by students as intensely offensive and their reason to lose respect
for the teacher. Once an incongruence was perceived by students, the teacher-student relationship
was broken irreparably, and participants identified this as a primary reason for disengagement in
many cases not just from the assignment but from the course. The importance of this finding is
that while there were many reports of intercultural competence and humility from instructors, it
was not the common experience of participants. It is important for instructors to pursue a
culturally humble stance to help support student engagement.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 158
Given the context, cultural insensitivity could be seen as a subset of a broader picture of
teacher non-immediacy and misbehaviour. Some literature connects student disengagement with
experiencing negative classroom environments that are caused by instructor non-immediacy and
misbehaviour. Immediacy is described as the verbal and non-verbal behaviour by a teacher that
helps reduce the perceived psychological distance between students and themselves as the
authority figure (Kremling et al., 2017). Teacher misbehaviour might be being offensive (for
example, making insulting, biased, or prejudicial remarks), incompetence (for example, lacking
basic teaching skills) or indolent (being unprepared, late in returning work, or deviating from the
syllabus) (Broeckelman-Post et al., 2016). Immediacy is correlated with learning, meaning that
as teacher immediacy increases, student learning increases. There are differences between
cultures on the strength of the relationship between immediacy and learning, but the direction of
relationship is the same (Zhang & Oetzel, 2006).
When considering the importance of the relationship to the teacher in connection to the
findings of this study, a culturally insensitive instructor could be described as non-immediate
(not reducing the psychological distance between themselves and students), misbehaving by
making offensive remarks, and incompetent because they are using unfamiliar teaching
approaches. For example, Nadia’s story at the beginning of the chapter described a content-
intense lecture from her accounting class, but one that is not atypical in higher education
instruction. She mentioned that the instructor did not understand how to teach “students here,”
suggesting that she sees the teacher as being incompetent for students from her culture. However,
her tolerance of teacher unpreparedness seemed particularly high, with an elevated level of
empathy and forgiveness for her instructor being otherwise engaged with her Ph.D. studies and
not always being organized for class.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 159
Attending to signals.
Sonleitner and Khalifa (2005) reported that a challenge common to many instructors as
they start teaching in the Gulf is that they encounter unfamiliar signals from the class to indicate
understanding or engagement. There were a variety of cases in this study where participants
perceived teacher non-immediacy, when they believed they were communicating to the
instructor who did not understand, that they wanted more guidance, or that they thought the
expectations were unreasonable, but the signals seemed to be either ignored or unnoticed.
Returning to Nadia’s experience, when she felt the student requests were simply “voided” by the
instructor, is an example of this miscommunication. From my perspective as an institutional
insider, I understand that there are some aspects of a course that the instructor simply could not
modify for students because of institutional policy, but this was not communicated in an
understandable way to Nadia. Buskist et al. (2018) stated, “Learning occurs within a powerful
social context” (p. 56) and “how students perceive their teachers’ attitudes and actions toward
them will largely determine how they feel about their courses and their willingness to engage in
them” (pp. 56-57). In some cases, the perception that an instructor was not being empathetic was
possibly because the instructor was following the university procedures, but the participants
associated the responsibility negatively as a rigid attitude or inaction intentionally chosen by the
instructor. This behaviour, when female students are frustrated but outwardly tolerant of what
they felt was unreasonable teacher behaviour, aligns with what might be expected in a high-
power distance culture, where less powerful people are more likely to accept inequalities
(Prowse & Goddard, 2010). In the context female students are more likely to see the teacher as
an authority figure that should be respected rather than challenged (Prowse & Goddard, 2010).
Like a thread running through several incidents, there was an awareness that the instructor had
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 160
the power and it was not a student’s role to confront them on, for example, their teaching
approach, or their misperceptions of Emirati society. An important takeaway from this is the
need for instructors to listen empathetically to what female students are asking, and even if the
requests cannot be accommodated, the instructor’s positive attitude and understanding of the
requests is important. Clearly it is pivotal that instructors take the time to explain their reasoning
so the female students feel heard and not rebuffed.
Favourable and unfavourable consequences of feedback.
Targeted feedback is an effective way for teachers to enhance the quality of student
learning (Ambrose et al., 2010); however, the participants in the study had some mixed reactions
to receiving feedback: they found it demotivating as often as motivating. On the positive side,
when an instructor noticed and commented on good work and progress (and not only
misbehaving students), it was highly appreciated and memorable for students. However, a
finding from this study was that many participants found well-intentioned negative feedback
difficult to receive and tended to disengage because of it. It is important for instructors to
consider the effectiveness of their feedback to ensure that female students are receiving a clear
picture of how their work may differ from the goal (Ambrose et al., 2010). It is also important
that instructors recognize student effort and keep in mind how feedback, particularly negative
feedback, is communicated to students. One example is using a communication method that does
not embarrass the student in front of her peers, as happened to Aisha. The instructor was giving
her individual verbal feedback about areas she needed to improve with her writing, but she was
upset that other students might have been able to overhear because they were also in the
classroom. Another example is to communicate feedback in a way that acknowledges their effort
and makes it clear that the instructor is giving feedback to help female students improve and not
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 161
because they like to pick them out and find errors. Wass, Timmermans, Harland, and McLean
(2018) argued that emotions like annoyance, frustration, and disappointment are reported as a
reaction to assessment practices such as timing and weighting . They encouraged that “when
considering assessment practices, educators should ask questions about the emotional impact of
assessment to ensure learning while also taking into account the importance of student well-
being” (Wass et al., 2018, p. 1). There were many examples from the data when students were
confronted with a standard that they had not yet achieved and were being given formative
feedback by their instructor; rather than being motivated to reach the standard, they either did not
believe they had the skills, thought the teacher was unduly picking on them, or believed that it
was the teacher’s role to make the ideas simpler. The study suggests that instructors should
closely consider the purpose of their feedback, the setting in which they are giving feedback and
should monitor student reactions. It may also be helpful to communicate the growth-oriented
purpose of feedback and building female students’ self-efficacy when they have not yet achieved
the standard.
Personal development and relevance.
In many traditional university settings, the economics of the student-institution
relationship is quite different from this setting. For example, students usually pay high fees to the
institution and may be taking an undergraduate degree with the expectation of being able get a
better job (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005) or for a personal goal related to learning. In this
context, however, students are fully funded by the government to attend university, and social
and familial expectations combined with personal or professional goals guide the students’
decision to undertake a degree (Engin & McKeown, 2017). Certain tension surrounds the
purpose of a university degree. Students’ motivation to complete may include securing social
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 162
status, becoming an important person, making family members happy, and performing a duty to
the country outweighing the traditional economic goal of employment or personal development
goals related to learning.
Although more women than men pursue higher education in the UAE, the completion of
their studies does not always translate to working. Although the number has been increasing over
time, in 2017 only 32% of Emirati women were participants in the labour force (Sanderson,
2019). In comparison, the Canadian labour market crested 32% women in the early sixties. This
low participation rate in the labour force is attributed to many factors. One factor is that Emirati
women tend to prioritize their role of wife and mother over career goals, particularly when they
have young children. Further, an Emirati woman’s openness to working is related to their role
models growing up, which varies between families (Dubai Women Establishment, 2018). Given
these differing incentives for study and future work in relation to many other contexts, it is
plausible that students enter their programs with ideas about the purpose of studying that are at
odds with program design focused on employability.
Relating the purpose of pursuing a degree back to EVT, program designers and faculty
members may make assumptions about the motivational reasons (attainment value, intrinsic
value, utility value, and cost) which female students attach to pursuing an undergraduate degree,
and that the students may attribute very different motivations for the pursuit of the degree. For
example, when female students say they lack interest in the topics in the class, they may be
saying they cannot see the value of the material and are not prepared to invest the cost of the
persistence required to undertake challenging tasks. I suggest that in this context, with a mosaic
of goals related to achieving social status, becoming an important person, making family
members happy, and duty to the country combined with the lack of financial investment and low
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 163
workforce participation by women, means that students may assign a very different “task value”
to pursuing higher education than their teachers might assume. This is important because
understanding the value that motivates students is the key to encouraging engagement.
Another lens by which to consider a lack of interest in the material as a reason to
disengage is from the perspective of relevance. For example, when female students disengage
because they are not interested, they are viewing subjects as lacking utility value (believing that a
task does not relate to the person’s current and future goals), and the perceived cost (effort
required) is too high. I suggest that at a curricular level, a closer connection and relevance to the
UAE is needed to help increase engagement. For example, Mariam spoke of having to learn
about example systems from other countries rather than her own. Although there is a need for a
broad global understanding that would be expected as part of the curriculum, there is also a need
for localization. In Mariam’s example, she was discussing her frustration that material frequently
did not relate to her own country. This alludes to a similar finding from Aydarova (2013): faculty
hired to teach in the UAE context often adopt textbooks and examples from their own
international background, which puts the burden of making connections between the
international examples and the UAE context on the students. This can have very real
implications for students’ interest, because they are forced to intuit the utility value themselves,
develop their own situational interest and are not necessarily supported in developing interest
from teachers’ examples (Rotgans & Schmidt, 2017). Localization of the curriculum and
examples used by instructors would increase the utility value of material for female students, and
encourage students’ development of interest, leading to increased engagement.
The participants’ perceptions of when they were most engaged in learning often
connected with what might not be traditionally considered as part of core academic outcomes
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 164
related to the mastery of subject material. When participants were engaged, they often discussed
building “soft skills” such as interpersonal communication proficiency, teamwork expertise, or
developing in personal ways by gaining independence, building confidence or mastering
something new and personally useful for the first time. Although it is common for models of
student engagement to indicate that improving engagement enhances academic outcomes (Kahu,
2013a), it is uncommon for models to suggest that iterative engagement happens through
learning affective skills or being given opportunities to develop personally.
Using the lens of EVT, participants put a high value on opportunities to develop, which
draws my attention to it as a potential lever to improve or discourage engagement. Female
students may attribute intrinsic value, or utility value, or perhaps even attainment value to these
skills, and are therefore motivated when undertaking tasks that support this development.
As included in the Bernard (2015) definition, the experience of engagement is iterative,
and with it either positive or negative momentum can build. Although we know that being
engaged improves outcomes, this study suggests that the perception of being engaged for this
population came when they were given the opportunity develop personal affective skills
(independence, confidence) and interpersonal skills (teamwork) that did not relate to course
content. An important theme arose when participants mentioned a lack of interest in the material
as a reason to disengage, which is the opposite of seeing coursework as an opportunity to
develop. Participants stressed that to be engaged, they needed to be able to see the value of new
material to their own lives and when they could not see the relevance to their personal sphere or
the UAE context, it was their primary reason to disengage. Therefore, I suggest that this type of
experience needs to be intentionally scaffolded throughout course and program design as a
purposeful way to increase engagement.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 165
Model summary
In this discussion, I have explained my contextualized model of engagement levers for
female Emirati students. At the centre is the individual student, with her values and expectation
of success. To support engagement, she needs to traverse to an intercultural context and
participate in applied and relevant coursework, in active teaching approaches or have
opportunities for extracurricular involvement to engage in learning in her undergraduate
program. She is most likely to engage if she experiences accessible language both from her
teacher’s lectures and in the required reading and coursework. It supports engagement if she is
given a structured and balanced approach to building independent learning skills, as it is likely
she may be very dependent on the instructor. A positive teacher-student relationship is important
for engagement, with an instructor who is culturally humble, attends to student signals, and is
aware of how to give both positive and negative feedback. Finally, she is most likely to enter an
iterative cycle of engagement if she is given an opportunity to develop personally and the
material is relevant to the UAE.
Implications of this Research
In this section, I make recommendations to educators who are teaching or facilitating
learning experiences for Emirati women based on the participants’ perception of what supported
or alternately were barriers to their engagement in learning.
The first recommendation is to recognize the importance of building a positive teacher-
student relationship. Taking time to build rapport in a classroom benefitted student engagement.
Simple tasks such as getting to know students by name, noticing good work, and ensuring
students got to know each other were important to female students. Further, the data suggests it is
important for a teacher to set high but achievable standards, with an air of friendliness rather than
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 166
strictness or meanness. Participants thrived when their perspectives were valued by their
instructors. As a cultural outsider—which most people teaching in this context are—be aware
that you can inadvertently silence female students by lacking empathy for the family pressures
on them or by judging cultural practices. Be curious about the culture and give female students
the opportunity to explain their perspectives. Most importantly, be conscious of not valuing your
own perspective over theirs.
A quotation “Academic language is . . . no one’s mother tongue” (Bourdieu et al., 1996,
p. 8) is common among professionals teaching language preparation programs, and underpins the
next recommendation: Be conscious of the language level of students. Disciplinary language is
complex and specialized, and participants did not believe their instructors recognized how
challenging it was for them to understand what they heard or how time-consuming and
frustrating it was for them to read what was assigned or produce written work.
Another recommendation is to understand that female students have a craving for
autonomy and independence, but learning may need to be intentionally scaffolded over time to
work towards their aspirations. Seemingly, study participants encountered barriers with learning
when they felt they were not given enough guidance or support, although the practices they
described would often be seen as a higher level of structure than in traditional higher educational
institutions.
Not finding the material interesting or relevant was a key barrier to learning. Being an
instructor who is enthusiastic and knowledgeable about the subject was one way to help
overcome this perception. Further, as an instructor it is important to connect the materials to
female students’ lives and their country. Participants reported the curriculum often drew on
examples and texts that are written outside the country, which they found frustrating. Why learn
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 167
about places they had no intention of going to, and why not learn about their own context? A
proposition emerging from this research would be to ensure that faculty have connections to the
local context in their specialized fields and that they are encouraged to bring that connection into
the classroom and curriculum.
Finally, participants found value in opportunities for affective and soft skills
development, which was connected to their experience of engagement in learning. Given the
context, and their sometimes-limited opportunities for independence, another recommendation
from this research is to ensure that courses intentionally foster opportunities for female students
to develop skills such as teamwork, self-confidence, leadership, problem-solving, and
communications.
Suggestions for Future Research
Further research is needed to understand factors that affect student engagement in this
context. First, studies testing the proposed model or the efficacy of interventions applied to
increase engagement based on experiences self-reported as critical to female students would
build on this research. These interventions could be at a task, course, or program level. Further,
collecting faculty input on what they perceive as critical for student engagement would add to
the understanding. Undertaking similar research focusing on different cohorts of students: single
program, first-year experience, male students or different language entry grades would expose
similar factors related to engagement. Undertaking similar research at other institutions in the
UAE (for example, private or other federal institutions) to see if results would be similar would
also increase understanding of experiences that help and hinder engagement.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 168
Concluding Comments
In a book packed with techniques to support student engagement, Barkley (2010) states
that:
student engagement is the product of motivation and active learning. It is a product rather
than a sum because it will not occur if either element is missing. It does not result from
one or the other alone, but rather is generated in the space that resides in the overlap of
motivation and active learning (p. 6).
The idea that engagement only happens when certain elements are in place (active learning and
motivation in the case of the quote) is part of what makes engagement research so complex and
compelling. Which elements are the most important? In which contexts? What elements act the
same as a “0” in a mathematical product, consistently generating a nil result? There is no set
formula that will always result in students’ engagement, however, the aim of this study was
about suggesting the specific elements that, from the perspective of students, might shift the “0"
to a positive number. The themes that emerged from the data focused on the parts participants
individually played in their engagement and disengagement, as well as what others did to support
or impede them. Having an interest in something relevant, feeling they had some autonomy and
achievable language requirements came forward as helping to motivate them when they were
present, and discourage them when they were not. A large player in the student’s engagement
came from the instructor. A relational, empathetic, enthusiastic person who could connect
material to the UAE context was key. Support from peers could support engagement, but also
when group roles were unclear or goals were dissimilar, the experience could be very
disengaging. Family members playing encouraging supporting roles were also important. The
contextualized model I proposed from this study has four environmental levers that are
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 169
actionable by instructors, program designers and administrators to effect engagement in this
context. The levers were (a) accessible language, (b) positive instructor-student relationships, (c)
a balance of independence, and finally (d) personal development and relevance. Through
attention to these environmental factors, the data suggests it may be possible to remove the zeros
from the student engagement equations in this specific context.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 170
References
Aboudan, R. (2011). Engage them, don’t enrage them--Student voices and what it takes to
participate. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 128–134.
Adam, M. (2019). Student engagement of first year students at the University of Calgary in
Qatar (Doctoral dissertation). University of Calgary.
Al-Suwaidi, A. (2011). The United Arab Emirates at 40: A balance sheet. Middle East Policy,
18(4), 44–58.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., Dipietro, M., Lovett, M., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: 7 research-based principles for smart teaching. Jossey-Bass.
Andersson, B.-E., & Nilsson, S.-G. (1964). Studies in the reliability and validity of the critical
incident technique. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48(6), 398–403.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school:
Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools,
45(5), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and
psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of
School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
Arthur, N. (2001). Using critical incidents to investigate cross-cultural transitions. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(1), 41–53.
Ashour, S., & Fatima, S. K. (2016). Factors favouring or impeding building a stronger higher
education system in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2016.1196925
Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 171
College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297–308.
Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college. Liberal Education, 79(4), 4–16.
Astin, A. (1996). Involvement in learning revisited: Lessons we have learned. Journal of College
Student Development, 37(2), 123–134.
Aydarova, O. (2013). If not the best of the west, then look east: Imported teacher education
curricula in the Arabian Gulf. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(3), 284–
302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315312453742
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Banks, J. (2009). Multicultural education: Dimensions and paradigms. In J. Banks (Ed.), The
Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education (pp. 9–32). Routledge.
Barkley, E. F. (2010). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty. In The
Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass Higher & Adult
Education.
Baron, P., & Corbin, L. (2012). Student engagement: Rhetoric and reality. Higher Education
Research and Development, 31(6), 759–772.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.655711
Barron, K. E., & Hulleman, C. S. (2015). Expectancy-Value-Cost model of motivation. In
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 8, Issue
2006, pp. 503–509). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26099-6
Bennett, M. J. (2009). Defining, measuring, and facilitating intercultural learning: A conceptual
introduction to the Intercultural Education double supplement. Intercultural Education,
20(Supplementary), S1–S13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675980903370763
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 172
Bernard, J. S. (2015). Student engagement: A principle-based concept analysis. International
Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 12. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijnes-2014-0058
Blasco, M. (2015). Making the tacit explicit: Rethinking culturally inclusive pedagogy in
international student academic adaptation. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 23(1), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2014.922120
Bourdieu, P., Passeron, J. C., & de Saint Martin, M. (1996). Academic discourse: Linguistic
misunderstanding and professorial power. Stanford University Press.
Braxton, J. M., Hirschy, A. S., & McClendon, S. A. (2004). Understanding and reducing college
student departure. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 30(3), 1–105.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.3003
Britten, L., Borgen, W., & Wiggins, M. (2012). Self-awareness of dual roles when using the CIT
(Critical Incident Technique): Opening Pandoras Box? Psychology Research, 2(1), 52–63.
Broeckelman-Post, M. A., Tacconelli, A., Guzmán, J., Rios, M., Calero, B., & Latif, F. (2016).
Teacher misbehavior and its effects on student interest and engagement. Communication
Education, 65(2), 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1058962
Brookfield, S. (1998). Critically reflective practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the
Health Professions, 18(4), 197–205.
Bryson, C., & Hand, L. (2007). The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(4), 349–362.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290701602748
Burkett, T. (2016). Emirati students’ cultural norms and university teachers’ awareness: A socio-
cultural gap? Perspectives, 24(1), 5–11.
Burns, C. M. (2014). What helps and hinders the decision to access psychological services in a
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 173
police population: A critical incident study (Doctoral dissertation). University of British
Columbia.
Burt, J. (2004). Impact of active learning on performance and motivation in female Emirati
students. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 1, 1–14.
Buskist, W., Busler, J. N., & Kirby, L. A. (2018). Rules of (student) engagement. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 154, 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20291
Butterfield, L. D., & Borgen, W. A. (2005). Outplacement Counseling From the Client’s
Perspective. The Career Development Quarterly, 53(4).
Butterfield, L. D., Maglio, A., Borgen, W., & Amundson, N. (2009). Using the enhanced critical
incident technique in counselling psychology research. Canadian Journal of Counselling
and Psychotherapy, 43(4), 265–282.
Calgary, U. of. (2019). University of Calgary Calendar 2019-2020.
https://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/current/a-11.html
Chell, E. (2004a). Critical incident technique. In M. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao
(Eds.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods (pp. 219–220). Sage
Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412950589
Chell, E. (2004b). Critical Incident Technique. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide
to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 51–72). Sage Publications Inc.
Cheng, C., Cheung, S. F., Chio, J. H. M., & Chan, M. P. S. (2013). Cultural meaning of
perceived control: A meta-analysis of locus of control and psychological symptoms across
18 cultural regions. In Psychological Bulletin (Vol. 139, Issue 1).
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028596
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 174
education. AAHE Bulletin, 3–7.
Christenson, S., Reschly, A., & Wylie, C. (2012). Epilogue. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C.
Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 813–818). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
Closson, R. (2013). Racial and cultural factors and learning transfer. New Directions for Adult
and Continuing Education, 2013(137), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.20045
Cousin, G. (2009). Researching learning in higher education: An introduction to contemporary
methods and approaches. Routledge.
Crabtree, S. A. (2010). Engaging students from the United Arab Emirates in culturally
responsive education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 85–94.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290903525929
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Five qualitative approaches to inquiry. In Qualitative inquiry and
research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dahl, M. (2010). Failure to thrive in constructivism: A cross-cultural malady. Transgressions:
Cultural Studies and Education, 62, 1–130.
Deardorff, D. K. (2011). Assessing intercultural competence. New Directions for Institutional
Research, 149, 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.381
Douglas, J., Douglas, A., McClelland, R. J., & Davies, J. (2015). Understanding student
satisfaction and dissatisfaction: an interpretive study in the UK higher education context.
Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 329–349.
Douglas, J., McClelland, R., Davies, J., & Sudbury, L. (2009). Using critical incident technique
(CIT) to capture the voice of the student. The TQM Journal, 21(4), 305–318.
Dubai Statistics Center. (2019). Number of Population by Estimated by Nationality - Emirate of
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 175
Dubai.
Dubai Women Establishment. (2018). The power of choice: Insights into women’s employment
decisions and societal perspectives in the United Arab Emirates.
Dunn, L., & Wallace, M. (2006). Australian academics and transnational teaching: an
exploratory study of their preparedness and experiences. Higher Education Research &
Development, 25(4), 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360600947343
Eccles, J., & Wang, M. (2012). Part 1 commentary: So what is student engagement anyway? In
S. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student
engagement (pp. 133–145). Springer.
Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2001). Academic achievement motivation, development of. In
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 14–
20). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26001-7
Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109–132.
Engin, M., & McKeown, K. (2012). Cultural influences on motivational issues in students and
their goals for studying at university. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf
Perspectives, 9(1), 1–17.
Engin, M., & McKeown, K. (2017). Motivation of Emirati males and females to study at higher
education in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(5),
678–691. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2016.1159293
Fernandes, C., Ross, K., & Meraj, M. (2013). Understanding student satisfaction and loyalty in
the UAE HE sector. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(6), 613–630.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-07-2012-0082
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 176
Findlow, S. (2013). Higher education and feminism in the Arab Gulf. British Journal of
Sociology of Education, 34(1), 112–131.
Finn, J., & Zimmer, K. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S.
Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement
(pp. 97–132). Springer.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A
comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In S.
Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement
(pp. 763–782). Springer.
Freimuth, H. (2014). Who are our students? A closer look at the educational and socio-cultural
influences that have shaped Emirati students. The KUPP Journal, 3, 37–47.
Gallacher, D. J., Skuba, A., & Al Bahri, R. (2010). Awareness and perceptions of available
major programs by first year Zayed University students. Learning and Teaching in Higher
Education: Gulf Perspectives, 7(1), 1–10.
Gallant, M., & Pounder, J. S. (2008). The employment of female nationals in the United Arab
Emirates (UAE). Education, Business and Society, 1(1), 26–33.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17537980810861493
Godwin, S. M. (2006). Globalization, education and Emiratization: a case study of the United
Arab Emirates. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries,
27(1), 1–14.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 177
Gremler, D. D. (2004). The critical incident technique in service research. Journal of Service
Research, 7(1), 65–89.
Guiffrida, D. A. (2006). Toward a cultural advancement of Tinto’s theory. The Review of Higher
Education, 29(4), 451–472.
Guo, S., & Jamal, Z. (2007). Nurturing cultural diversity in higher education: A critical review of
selected models. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 37(3), 27–49.
Guy, T. C. (1999). Culture as context for adult education: The need for culturally relevant adult
education. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1999(82), 5–18.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.8201
Habley, W. R., Bloom, J. L., & Robbins, S. B. (2012). Increasing persistence: Research-based
strategies for college student success (Kindle). Jossey-Bass.
Halawah, I. (2006). The impact of student-faculty informal interpersonal relationships on
intellectual and personal development. College Student Journal, 40(3), 670–678.
Hammond, Z. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: promoting authentic
engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students ([Kindle ed).
Corwin.
Harris, L. R. (2008). A phenomenographic investigation of teacher conceptions of student
engagement in learning. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35(1), 57–79.
Hatherley-Greene, P. (2012a). Cultural border crossings in the UAE improving transitions from
high school to higher education (Doctoral dissertation). Curtin University.
Hatherley-Greene, P. (2012b). Policy paper: Cultural border crossings in the UAE.
http://www.alqasimifoundation.com/admin/Content/File-1612201535410.pdf
Holloway, E., & Schwartz, H. (2014). Critical incident technique: Exploring meaningful
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 178
interactions between students and professors. In SAGE Research Methods Cases. Sage
Publications. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/978144627305014533929
Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Owen, J., Worthington, E. L., & Utsey, S. O. (2013). Cultural
humility: measuring openness to culturally diverse clients. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 60(3), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032595
Horst, S., & Jacovidis, J. (2018). Locus of control. In B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of
Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation (pp. 989–993). Sage Publications Inc.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139
Hughes, H. (2012). An expanded critical incident approach for exploring information use and
learning. Library and Information Research, 36(112), 72–95.
James, A., & Shammas, N. M. (2018). Teacher care and motivation: a new narrative for teachers
in the Arab Gulf. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 26(4), 491–510.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2017.1422275
Jha, M. M. (2007). Barriers to student access and success: Is inclusive education an answer? In
G. K. Verma, C. Bagley, & M. M. Jha (Eds.), International perspectives on educational
diversity and inclusion : studies from America, Europe and India (pp. 33–44). Routledge.
Kahu, E. R. (2013a). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher
Education, 38(5), 758–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505
Kahu, E. R. (2013b). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher
Education, 38(5), 758–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505
Kain, D. (2004). Owning significance: The critical incident technique in research. In K. B.
DeMarrais & S. D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in
education and the social sciences (pp. 69–86). L. Erlbaum Associates.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 179
Kemp, L. J. (2013). Progress in female education and employment in the United Arab Emirates
towards millennium development goal (3): Gender equality. Foresight, 15(4), 264–277.
https://doi.org/10.1108/fs-02-2012-0007
Khandelwal, K. A. (2009). Effective teaching behaviors in the college classroom: A critical
incident technique from students’ perspective. International Journal of Teaching &
Learning in Higher Education, 21(3), 299–309.
Kirk, D. (2010). The development of higher education in the United Arab Emirates (The
Emirates Occasional Papers). Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research.
Krause, K.-L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493–505.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701698892
Kremling, J., Rothlisberger, C., & Smart, S. (2017). Negative classroom experiences. In A.
Tolman & J. Kremling (Eds.), Why students resist learning (pp. 128–145). Stylus
Publishing.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J., Bridges, B., & Hayek, J. (2007). Piecing together the student
success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations [Special Issue]. ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report, 32(5), 1–182. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.3205
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Student success in college: Creating
conditions that matter. Jossey-Bass.
Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement
research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 432–479.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313480891
Leach, L. (2014). Enhancing student engagement in one institution. Journal of Further and
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 180
Higher Education, 40(1), 23–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2013.869565
Leach, L. (2016). Exploring discipline differences in student engagement in one institution.
Higher Education Research & Development, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1137875
Leach, L., & Zepke, N. (2011). Engaging students in learning: A review of a conceptual
organiser. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(2), 193–204.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.509761
Leask, B. (2008). Teaching for learning in the transnational classroom. In M. Wallace & L. Dunn
(Eds.), Teaching in transnational higher education: Enhancing learning for offshore
international students (Kindle). Routledge.
Lemke-Westcott, T., & Johnson, B. (2013). When culture and learning styles matter: A Canadian
university with Middle-Eastern students. Journal of Research in International Education,
12(1), 66–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240913480105
Lin, L. (2006). Cultural dimensions of authenticity in teaching. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 2006(111), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.228
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging
confluences. In Y. Lincoln & E. Guba (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.,
pp. 163–188). Sage Publications.
Macfarlane, B., & Tomlinson, M. (2017). Critical and alternative perspectives on student
engagement. Higher Education Policy, 30(1), 1–4.
Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology.
Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), 193–205.
Mahani, S. (2014). A case study of the experiences of first-generation female students in the
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 181
United Arab Emirates (Doctoral dissertation). Northcentral University.
Mahani, S., & Molki, A. (2011). Factors influencing female Emirati students’ decision to study
engineering. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 13(1), 26–31.
Melguizo, T. (2011). A review of the theories developed to describe the process of college
persistence and attainment. In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (pp.
395–424). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0702-3_10
Menges, R. J., & Kulieke, M. J. (1984). Satisfaction and dissatisfaction in the college classroom.
Higher Education, 13(3), 255–264.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mertens, D. (2007). Cross-cultural research. In M. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. Liao (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412950589.n201
MillerIdriss, C., & Hanauer, E. (2011). Transnational higher education: offshore campuses in the
Middle East. Comparative Education, 47(2), 181–207.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2011.553935
Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2008). The development of constructivist grounded theory.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 25–35.
Moores, L., & Popadiuk, N. (2011). Positive aspects of international student transitions: A
qualitative inquiry. Journal of College Student Development, 52(3), 291–306.
Moran, C. (2014). What helps and hinder women doing well in historically male-dominated
careers: A critical incident study (Masters thesis). University of British Columbia.
NSSE. (n.d.). About NSSE. http://nsse.iub.edu/html/about.cfm
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 182
Oettingen, G. (1995). Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-
efficacy in changing societies (pp. 149–176). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1109/EVER.2017.7935960
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of
research [Kindle edition] (Vol. 2). Jossey-Bass Higher & Adult Education.
Pedersen, P. (1995). The five stages of culture shock: Critical incidents around the world.
Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
Perry, L. B., & Southwell, L. (2011). Developing intercultural understanding and skills: Models
and approaches. Intercultural Education, 22(6), 453–466.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2011.644948
Prowse, J., & Goddard, T. (2010). Teaching across cultures: Canada and Qatar. Canadian
Journal of Higher Education, 40(1), 31–52.
Raymond, S. M. (2008). Effective and ineffective university teaching from the students and
facultys perspectives: Matched or mismatched expectations? (Doctoral dissertation).
University of Exeter.
Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S.
Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement
(pp. 149–172). Springer.
Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during
learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
Reschly, A., & Christenson, S. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and
future directions of the engagement construct. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 183
(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3–19). Springer.
Robson, M., & Kitchen, S. (2007). Exploring physiotherapy students’ experiences of
interprofessional collaboration in the clinical setting: A critical incident study. Journal of
Interprofessional Care, 21(1), 95–109.
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2017). Interest development: Arousing situational interest
affects the growth trajectory of individual interest. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
49, 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.02.003
Russell, A. (2004). Zayed University students’ teaching and learning beliefs and preferences: An
analysis based on the surface versus deep learning approach. Learning and Teaching in
Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 1(1), 1–15.
Ryan, J. (2011). Teaching and learning for international students: Towards a transcultural
approach. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(6), 631–648.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2011.625138
Saafin, S. (2008). Arab tertiary students’ perceptions of effective teachers. Learning and
Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 5(2).
Sanderson, D. (2019, October 1). 10 charts that paint a picture of Emiritization. The National.
Schwartz, H. L., & Holloway, E. L. (2014). “I become a part of the learning process”: Mentoring
episodes and individualized attention in graduate education. Mentoring & Tutoring:
Partnership in Learning, 22(1), 38–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2014.882604
Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. (2011). Teachers’ critical incidents: Ethical dilemmas in teaching
practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(3), 648–656.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.11.003
Sharoff, L. (2008). Critique of the critical incident technique. Journal of Research in Nursing,
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 184
13(4), 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987107081248
Smith, B., Mills, L., & Amundson, N. E. (2014). What helps and hinders the hopefulness of post-
secondary students who have experienced significant barriers. The Canadian Journal of
Career Development, 13(2), 59–74.
Smith, L. (2006). Teachers’ conceptions of teaching at a Gulf university: A starting point for
revising a teacher development program. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf
Perspectives, 3(1).
Solomonides, I., Reid, A., & Petocz, P. (2012). A relational model of student engagement. In Ian
Solomonides, A. Reid, & P. Petocz (Eds.), Engaging with learning in higher education (pp.
11–24). Libri.
Sonleitner, N., & Khalifa, M. (2005). Western-educated faculty challenges in a Gulf classroom.
Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 2(1), 1–21.
Strati, A., Schmidt, J., & Maier, K. S. (2017). Perceived challenge, teacher support, and teacher
obstruction as predictors of student engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
109(1), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000108
Taylor, L., & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education,
14(1), 1–32.
Telford, R., & Masson, R. (2005). The congruence of quality values in higher education. Quality
Assurance in Education, 13(2), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880510594364
Tibbetts, Y., Canning, E. A., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2015). Academic motivation and
performance: Task value interventions. In International Encyclopedia of the Social &
Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 37–42). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
08-097086-8.26078-9
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 185
Tierney, W. G. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college. The
Journal of Higher Education, 63(6), 603–618.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089
Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal character of student
leaving. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(4), 438–455. https://doi.org/10.2307/1981920
Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. Higher Education Academy.
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/StudentEngagementLiteratureReview_1.pdf
Trowler, V. (2015). Negotiating contestations and chaotic conceptions: Engaging non-traditional
students in higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 69(3), 295–310.
Trowler, V., & Trowler, P. (2010). Student Engagement Evidence Summary. Higher Education
Academy; Higher Education Academy.
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/StudentEngagementEvidenceSummary_0.pdf
UAE Prime Ministers Office. (n.d.). UAE Vision 2021. https://www.vision2021.ae/en/uae-vision
Vang, C. T. (2010). An educational psychology of methods in multicultural education. Peter
Lang Publishing Inc.
Verma, G. K. (2007). Diversity and multicultural education: Cross-cutting issues and concepts.
In G. K. Verma, C. Bagley, & M. M. Jha (Eds.), International perspectives on educational
diversity and inclusion: Studies from America, Europe and India (pp. 21–30). Routledge.
Voss, R. (2009). Studying critical classroom encounters. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(2),
156–173. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880910951372
Waring, M. (2017). Finding your theoretical position. In R. Coe, M. Waring, L. Hedges, & J.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 186
Arthur (Eds.), Research methods and methodologies in education (2nd ed., pp. 15–22).
Wass, R., Timmermans, J., Harland, T., & McLean, A. (2018). Annoyance and frustration:
Emotional responses to being assessed in higher education. Active Learning in Higher
Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418762462
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Expectancy-value theory: Retrospective and prospective. In
T. Urdan & S. Karabenick (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement (Vol. 16A, pp.
35–70). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-7423(2010)000016A005
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2002). Development of achievement motivation. Academic Press.
Wilkins, S., Balakrishnan, M. S., & Huisman, J. (2012). Student satisfaction and student
perceptions of quality at international branch campuses in the United Arab Emirates.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(5), 543–556.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2012.716003
Wolf-Wendel, L., Ward, K., & Kinzie, J. (2009). A tangled web of terms: The overlap and
unique contribution of involvement, engagement, and integration to understanding college
student success. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 407–428.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0077
Woolsey, L. K. (1986). The critical incident technique: An innovative qualitative method of
research. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 20(4), 242–254.
Zepke, N. (2015a). Student engagement and neoliberalism: Mapping an elective affinity.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 34(6), 696–709.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2015.1096312
Zepke, N. (2015b). Student engagement research: Thinking beyond the mainstream. Higher
Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1311–1323.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 187
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1024635
Zhang, Q., & Oetzel, J. G. (2006). Constructing and validating a teacher immediacy scale: A
Chinese perspective. Communication Education, 55(2), 218–241.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520600566231
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 188
Appendix 1: Informed Consent
Name of Researcher, Faculty, Department, Telephone & Email:
Christina Davison
EdD Candidate, Graduate Student
Werklund School of Education
University of Calgary
+971 50 721 0514, [email protected]
Supervisor:
Dr. Nancy Arthur
Professor
Werklund School of Education
University of Calgary
+1 (403) 220-6756, [email protected]
Title of Project:
Engagement in Learning: Helping and Hindering Factors for Female Students at a UAE
University
This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, is only part of the process of informed
consent. If you want more details about something mentioned here, or information not included
here, you should feel free to ask. Please take the time to read this carefully and to understand any
accompanying information.
The University of Calgary Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board and the Public Federal
University Research Ethics Board have approved this research study.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to learn about your experience as a Public Federal University (PFU)
student, and particularly the times when you are “engaged” with learning in your classes. I want
to know what happens to help you feel interested, passionate, curious and inspired about the
experience of learning at university. This might be things that you do, think or feel yourself, or
things that other people do to help you. I also want to know about experiences where you have
been disengaged with learning. For example, what happens to make you act or feel disinterested,
bored, or dispassionate about learning. Last, I also want you to imagine things that you or other
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 189
people could have done to have helped you in the past to be more engaged. This information will
be used to help teachers at PFU, and other similar universities to improve their programs.
What Will I Be Asked To Do?
I am asking you to respond to a series of interview questions by telling me stories about your
experiences and opinions. When you come to this interview, I will ask you to bring a reminder of
work that you are most proud of that you completed at PFU as a student. We will use this work
as a starting point for our interview discussion. In the interview, I will ask you to tell me stories
from your past about times that you were very engaged and disengaged with learning. I do not
need to see, nor will I not keep a copy of the reminder of your work that you bring in, I only
want to have you describe it to me. I want to know specifically about things that you did,
thought, or felt when you were engaged or disengaged. I also want to know things that other
people did that helped or discouraged you. The other people might be friends, family, teachers or
anyone else you think was important.
I would like to audiotape our interview, so that I can make sure that I don’t miss anything you
say and include it in the analysis of the data.
After our interview, I would like to contact you again. First, I will send you a list of what I think
are the critical incidents, or most important stories, that you tell me in this interview. I will
include some categories that I think match your stories. Then I would like to have a short phone
call interview with you to discuss what I’ve written, and give you a chance to offer feedback or
clarify anything I might have misunderstood.
Depending on the stories, I think that this interview will take about 60 minutes, and the follow up
interview about 10 minutes.
You are being asked to make a voluntary decision whether or not to participate in this study.
Please read and think about the information given above. If there is any part of the information
you do not understand, please ask me to explain it. If you would like to consult with someone not
associated with this study that will be all right, too. If you decide not to participate, or decide
there is a question you do not want to answer, or if you later decide to discontinue your
participation, your decision will not affect your present or future relations with PFU. You will
always be free to discontinue participation at any time, and all data collected up to that time as a
result of your partial participation will be destroyed without being used in the study.
What Type of Personal Information Will Be Collected?
Should you agree to participate, I will be collecting some personal information from you: your
full name, email address and phone number so that I can contact you for the follow-up cross-
checking interview. I will also ask you some demographic questions about your age, academic
major, how long you have been a student at PFU, and how you first started at PFU (in language
prep, direct entry, or transfer).
I would like to audiotape this interview. My supervisor will also have access to the recording,
and she may listen to it to be sure that I am doing the interview properly. I will also give access
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 190
to small parts of your interview to a company to get help typing out everything you say. The
people in the company would only have access to short parts, and not the whole interview at a
time.
There are several options for you to consider if you decide to take part in this research. You can
choose all, some, or none of them. Please review each of these options and choose Yes or No:
I grant permission to be audio taped: Yes: ___ No: ___
I wish to remain anonymous,
but you may refer to me by a pseudonym (a pretend name): Yes: ___ No: ___
The pseudonym (pretend name) I choose for myself is: _________________________________
Are there Risks or Benefits if I Participate?
You might find some of the questions remind you about some bad times you have had at
university. If you are upset by these, it is ok to not answer the question. You also have the PFU
Counselling Services available to you if you’d like to talk to somebody about it.
You also might find it helpful to talk about the things that helped you be engaged or disengaged
with learning. This information might help you if you encounter a similar learning situation in
the future.
What Happens to the Information I Provide?
I have a master list that I keep in a private, protected place. It has your name and contact
information on it, as well as the pseudonym (pretend name) you listed above. If you didn’t
choose a pseudonym (pretend name), I will assign you one. For the rest of the study, I will only
refer to you by this pseudonym.
After our interview, I will have all of our conversation typed out (transcribed). I will then change
any time that your name is used to the pseudonym (pretend name) you listed above, or a different
pretend name if you didn’t provide one. I might also change some family relationships to make
sure that your stories are not identifiable (for example, I might change “sister” to “cousin” or
“uncle” to “family member”).
My supervisor may listen to the recording to be sure that I am doing the interview properly. I
also need to share the transcribed (typed out) interview with some other researchers who will
double check my work. You will only be referred to as your pseudonym for this.
In case you change your mind and would like to stop the interview, that is ok. Just tell me, and I
will stop the interview and the recording. You can leave the interview room if you choose. I will
destroy the recording and your information will be removed from the study.
If you change your mind after the interview and want your data excluded, that is ok too. You can
contact me up to 1 week after this interview and tell me you would like to withdraw. I will
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 191
destroy the recording and your information will be removed from the study.
After 1 week after the interview, the data may have entered into the aggregate data process
where I cannot identify which information came from which participant. If your data has entered
that part of the process, it may be impossible to remove it at that point.
The non-identifiable data will be stored for one year on a computer disk, at which time, it will be
permanently erased. The published results of the study will contain only data from which no
individual participant can be identified.
Participation is completely voluntary.
Signatures
Your signature on this form indicates that 1) you understand to your satisfaction the information
provided to you about your participation in this research project, and 2) you agree to participate
in the research project.
In no way does this waive your legal rights nor release the investigators, sponsors, or involved
institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities. You are free to withdraw from this
research project at any time. You should feel free to ask for clarification or new information
throughout your participation.
Participant’s Name: (please print) _____________________________________________
Participant’s Signature: _________________________________ Date: ______________
Researcher’s Name: (please print) ____________________________________________
Researcher’s Signature: ________________________________ Date: _______________
Questions/Concerns
If you have any further questions or want clarification regarding this research and/or your
participation, please contact:
Ms Christina Davison,
Graduate Student
Werklund School of Education
University of Calgary
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 192
+971 50 721 0514, [email protected]
Dr. Nancy Arthur
Professor
Werklund School of Education
University of Calgary
+1 (403) 220-6756, [email protected]
If you have any concerns about the way you’ve been treated as a participant, please contact the
Research Ethics Analyst, Research Services Office, University of Calgary at +1 (403) 220-4283;
email [email protected] .
A copy of this consent form has been given to you to keep for your records and reference. The
investigator has kept a copy of the consent form.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 193
Appendix 2: Interview Guides
Interview 1 – Main Data Collection
Participant contact information sheet filled in? Yes/No
Consent form reviewed? Yes/No
Signed? Yes/No
If Yes, start recording.
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to learn about your experience as a PFU student, and particularly the
times when you are “engaged” with learning in your classes. I want to know what happens to
help you feel interested, passionate, curious and inspired about the experience of learning at
university. This might be things that you do, think or feel yourself, or things that other people do
to help you. I also want to know about experiences where you have been disengaged with
learning. For example, what happens to make you act or feel disinterested, bored, or
dispassionate about learning. Last, I also want you to imagine things that you or other people
could do in the future to help you be more engaged. So the interview has three main parts: when
you have been engaged, disengaged, and then what you wish you had.
This information will be used to help teachers at PFU, and other similar universities to
improve their programs.
The interview style that I’m using is going to ask you to describe a story about an
experience you have had. I am then going to ask you follow up questions to that story. It might
seem like I am asking the same question over and over. The reason why I do this is because I
want to completely understand all the important parts of the story you’re telling me. Sometimes
with this kind of questions, participants feel like they are not giving the “correct” answers and
they feel bad. I just want to assure you, this is not the situation!
Contextual questions:
Ok, lets get started. As you know, I am conducting research that is investigating what helps
students be interested, or engaged, in learning at university. The purpose of this interview is to
collect information about your own experiences and perceptions.
1. As a way of getting started, can you tell me a little about your degree path at PFU? What
program are you in now? How long have you been a PFU student? What program did you
start in?
2. Think about any classes you have been in. How does an interested, engaged student
behave? What do they do? How does a dis-interested, or disengaged student behave?
3. Would you describe yourself as an engaged student? Why or why not?
4. I asked you to bring a reminder of some university-related work (an assignment, an
activity, etc.) that you enjoyed working on. Can you tell me about the piece of work
you’ve brought with you?
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 194
Critical incident questions:
Helping:
1. Think about a time where you were particularly engaged with learning at PFU, like for
example the work we just talked about. I’ll give you a minute to think.
2. Tell me generally about the time you were particularly engaged.
3. What is one important thing that helped you be interested and engaged in that learning
experience?
4. Follow-up probes (if needed):
a. Was there anything you did?
b. Was there anything about what you thought?
c. Was there anything important about how you felt?
d. Was there anything someone else did? Teacher, friend, family member, other
person?
5. Follow-up probes:
a. When you say “[name the factor that they describe],” can you tell me what that
means to you?
b. What was it about [name the factor] that made it helpful for engaging you with
learning?
c. What led up to [name the factor] happening?
d. What did it look like in the situation to others or feel like to you when [name the
factor] was helping you?
e. What was the result or the outcome after you finished the learning experience?
6. Was there another important thing that helped you be engaged in that learning
experience? (Return to #2 until another factor cannot be named)
Hindering:
Now I am going to ask you about important experiences for you that have had a negative effect
on you being interested in learning. The times when you felt disinterested, or disengaged.
1. Think about a time where you were particularly disengaged with learning at PFU.
Perhaps a time where you acted or felt disinterested, bored, or dispassionate about
learning. I’ll give you a minute to think about it.
2. Tell me generally about the time you were particularly disengaged
3. What is one important thing that made you disengage or be discouraged in that learning
experience?
4. Follow-up probes (if needed):
a. Was there anything you did?
b. Was there anything about what you thought?
c. Was there anything important about how you felt?
d. Was there anything someone else did? Teacher, friend, family member, other
person?
5. Follow-up probes:
a. When you say “[name the factor that they describe],” can you tell me what that
means to you?
b. What was it about [name the factor] that made it difficult or impossible for you to
engage with learning?
c. What led up to [name the factor] happening?
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 195
d. What did it look like in the situation to others or feel like to you when [name the
factor] was disengaging you?
e. What was the result or the outcome after you finished the learning experience?
6. Was there another important thing that helped you be disengaged in that learning
experience? (Return to #2 until another factor cannot be named)
Wish list
We’ve talked about important things that you have found helpful (name them), and some things
that have made it more difficult for you to be interested in learning (name them).
1. Now I’d like you to use your imagination. Imagine you are able to make a list to give to a
future teacher. On this list, tell them what you think will help you be more interested in
learning more often.
a. When you say “[name the factor that they describe],” can you tell me what that
means to you?
b. How would [name the factor] help you in being interested in learning?
c. Can you tell me what specific kinds of situations or circumstances, where [name
the factor] would be very useful?
2. Repeat #1 until others do not appear.
Closing
Thank you for taking the time to talk with me today, and for openly describing your experiences.
I will contact you in the next couple of month or so to have you review my description of the
important points in your story, and some categories to describe it. I would like to have a short
phone conversation with you then.
ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING 196
Interview 2 – Participant Cross-check
Notify participant: I will take notes as a part of this interview. You may contact me to make any
revisions within one week if you choose to.
Did you get time to review the files sent? Yes/No
If No, give time for review.
Review of own Critical Incidents and Wish List items:
1. Are Critical Incidents and Wish List items correct?
2. Is anything missing?
3. Is there anything that needs revising?
4. Do you have any other comments?
Review of tentative themes into which participant’s incidents have been placed:
1. Do the headings make sense to you?
2. Do the headings capture your experience and the meaning that the incident or factor had
for you?
3. Are there any incidents that do not appear to fit from your perspective? If so, where do
you think they belong?
Wrap-Up
Thank participant, let them know to contact me if they think of anything else.
Top Related