See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341600452

Engaging and/or Effective? Students' Evaluation of Pedagogical Practices in

Higher Education

Article in College Teaching · May 2020

DOI: 10.1080/87567555.2020.1769017

CITATIONS READS

12 777

4 authors, including:

Jose Eos Trinidad Galvin Ngo

University of California, Berkeley Ateneo de Manila University
55 PUBLICATIONS 460 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 27 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jose Eos Trinidad on 23 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

COLLEGE TEACHING
https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2020.1769017

Engaging and/or Effective? Students’ Evaluation of Pedagogical Practices in

Higher Education
Jose Eos Trinidada,b , Galvin Radley Ngob, Ana Martina Nevadab, and Jeanne Angelica Moralesb
a
The University of Chicago; bAteneo de Manila University

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
In recent years, higher education institutions have emphasized pedagogical practices that Higher education;
increase student engagement and are said to be effective. However, most of the research pedagogy; effective
on ‘effective’ practices often do not make the distinction between what students like—or teaching; student-
centered learning
what they find engaging—and what practices they feel they learn from—or what they
understand as effective. Thus, this research sheds light on the distinction between practices
that are engaging, effective, both, or neither. Through interviews with students (n ¼ 32), we
uncovered four areas regarding what students think about pedagogical practices: Practices
they felt engaging and effective were those high in personal involvement and helped with
idea retention while those they found initially unengaging but effective were activities with
a lot of independent work, may seem monotonous, but helped reinforce ideas. Practices
they felt engaging but not effective were easy practices that did little for critical thinking
while those they did not find engaging and effective were ones that created an uncondu-
cive environment that led to lower motivation. These themes help prompt critical reflection
about how students perceive different pedagogical practices, and what higher education
faculty can intentionally use, adapt, or avoid.

Introduction Researchers claim that student-centered learning

Instruction in higher education has been predomin-
antly lecture-based, where the instructor gives lectures,
and becomes the primary source of information for
students (CohenMiller, Shamatov, and Merril 2018).
Lectures remain the predominant teaching method in
higher education due to professors being used to it,
and professors and students resisting changes to this
mode of teaching (Pale 2013). Despite its common
use, listening or participating in a lecture is not always
deemed an engaging activity for students. Some stud-
ies state that lectures do not cater to individual learn-
ers, while others say that it lowers students’ cognitive
engagement (Mazer and Hess 2017; Schmidt et al.
2015; Doherty 2017). Lectures also do not permit as
much interaction between students and teachers
(Brown and Bakhtar 1988). As an alternative to lec-
tures, emerging pedagogical practices, such as student-
centered learning, have been introduced as methods
that can promote better education experiences for stu-
dents (Arman 2018; Slavich and Zimbardo 2012;
Kain 2003).
(SCL) can facilitate better learning for students since
it moves the focus from the teacher who teaches to
the student who learns (Cornelius-White 2007;
O’Neill and McMahon 2005; Lea, Stephenson, and
Troy 2003).1 Aside from the focus on the students,
SCL is also traditionally associated with active learning
techniques and collaborative pedagogical activities
(Lee and Hannafin 2016; Slavich and Zimbardo 2012;
Trinidad and Ngo 2019). Many students would
describe active learning strategies as engaging, often
defined with words like participation, motivation,
energy, action, direction, and connection (Cleveland
2011; Russell, Ainley, and Frydenberg 2005). Studies
like that of Fata-Hartley (2011), and Detlor et al.
(2012) emphasize the importance of pedagogies that
could engage students better, which may come in the
form of informational lectures coupled with active
and cooperative learning exercises, one-minute papers,
think-pair-shares, and problem-solving activities. A
study by Poot, Learning, and Austin (2011) features
the use of various multimedia webfolio presentations

CONTACT Jose Eos Trinidad jtrinidad@uchicago.edu The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
1
Although the general literature has called it student-centered learning, some researchers have opted to use the term learning-centered teaching because
the focus is on the learning that happens rather than merely the student (Whetten 2007; Davidovitch 2013).
! 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Below is the pre-print manuscript version of the research. I provide this in order for other
researchers who do not have access to journal articles and databases to have access to this
present research.

If you wish to receive the print version, you may email me at jtrinidad@ateneo.edu or

jtrinidad@uchicago.edu
 Engaging and/or effective? Students’ evaluation of pedagogical practices in higher education

Abstract

In recent years, higher education institutions have emphasized pedagogical practices that

increase student engagement and are said to be effective. However, most of the research on

‘effective’ practices often do not make the distinction between what students like—or what they

find engaging—and what practices they feel they learn from—or what they understand as

effective. Thus, this research sheds light on the distinction between practices that are engaging,

effective, both, or neither. Through interviews with students (n=32), we uncovered four areas

regarding what students think about pedagogical practices: Practices they felt engaging and

effective were those high in personal involvement and helped with idea retention while those

they found initially unengaging but effective were activities with a lot of independent work, may

seem monotonous, but helped reinforce ideas. Practices they felt engaging but not effective were

easy practices that did little for critical thinking while those they did not find engaging and

effective were ones that created an unconducive environment that led to lower motivation. These

themes help prompt critical reflection about how students perceive different pedagogical

practices, and what higher education faculty can intentionally use, adapt, or avoid.

Keywords: higher education; pedagogy; effective teaching; student-centered learning

 Introduction

Instruction in higher education has been predominantly lecture-based, where the instructor gives

lectures, and becomes the primary source of information for students (CohenMiller, Shamatov,

& Merril, 2018). Lectures remain the predominant teaching method in higher education due to

professors being used to it, and professors and students resisting changes to this mode of

teaching (Pale, 2013). Despite its common use, listening or participating in a lecture is not

always deemed an engaging activity for students. Some studies state that lectures do not cater to

individual learners, while others say that it lowers students’ cognitive engagement (Mazer &

Hess, 2017; Schmidt et al., 2015; Doherty, 2017). Lectures also do not permit as much

interaction between students and teachers (Brown & Bakhtar, 1988). As an alternative to

lectures, emerging pedagogical practices, such as student-centered learning, have been

introduced as methods that can promote better education experiences for students (Arman, 2018;

Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012; Kain, 2003).

Researchers claim that student-centered learning (SCL) can facilitate better learning for

students since it moves the focus from the teacher who teaches to the student who learns

(Cornelius-White, 2007; O’Neill & McMahon, 2005; Lea, Stephenson, & Troy, 2003).1 Aside

from the focus on the students, SCL is also traditionally associated with active learning

techniques and collaborative pedagogical activities (Lee & Hannafin, 2016; Slavich & Zimbardo,

2012; Trinidad & Ngo, 2019). Many students would describe active learning strategies as

engaging, often defined with words like participation, motivation, energy, action, direction, and

connection (Cleveland, 2011; Russell, Ainley & Frydenberg, 2005). Studies like that of Fata-

Hartley (2011), and Detlor and colleagues (2012) emphasize the importance of pedagogies that

1Although the general literature has called it student-centered learning, some researchers have opted to use the
term learning-centered teaching because the focus is on the learning that happens rather than merely the student
(Whetten, 2007; Davidovitch, 2013).
could engage students better, which may come in the form of informational lectures coupled with

active and cooperative learning exercises, one-minute papers, think-pair-shares, and problem-

solving activities. A study by Poot (2011) features the use of various multimedia webfolio

presentations and projects, with the idea that these activities can engage students better. These

student-centered practices encourage higher order thinking skills (e.g., analyzing, relating,

evaluating and applying), which result to higher motivation, deeper learning, and better academic

grades (Granger et al., 2012; Stefaniak & Tracey, 2015; Armbruster, Patel, Johnson, & Weiss,

2009; Slunt & Giancarlo, 2004).

In higher education specifically, SCL is theorized to have five key components: (1) there

is a balance of power between teachers and students; (2) course content should teach students the

students the skills of how to learn; (3) there is a shift in the teacher’s role from sole knowledge-

giver to mentor; (4) responsibility for learning is with the student; and (5) evaluation is used not

only to assess but also to teach (Wright, 2011; Weimer, 2013). However, an empirical study that

tried to confirm this theory saw that students and teachers emphasize only three aspects:

pedagogical engagement, skills-building, and student participation (Trinidad, 2019). More

frequently, students and teachers think of SCL in terms of pedagogical practices, like laboratory

experiments, problem solving activities, individual seatwork, and collaborative exercises (Hains

& Smith, 2012; Savery, 2015; Prince, 2004).

Given the growing use and adoption of student-centered pedagogies in higher education

classes, there is likewise a need to know which practices specifically are good for students.

Often, what are deemed good for students are couched in one of two terms: engaging or

effective. Yet too often also, these words are conflated with each other. For example, a highly

motivating (i.e., engaging) activity is often immediately seen as an effective one. However,

higher student engagement does not automatically translate to better (i.e., effective) learning,
measured through students’ grades or retention of ideas (Furtak, Seidel, Iverson, & Briggs, 2012;

Cornelius-White, 2007). Thus, there is a need to disaggregate what is meant by both words.

Engagement can often be defined in terms of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive ways

of students actively participating in the task at hand, positively liking or valuing the process of

learning, and consciously using learning strategies for deeper understanding (Fredricks,

Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). But more than the students’ investment in the learning process,

engagement can also proxy for what happens in the learning environment (Zepke, 2013).

Students can feel engaged when they are immersed in their specific learning experiences, and

this can happen with activities that are interactive, exploratory, and relevant to their lives

(Parsons and Taylor, 2011). Empirically it can be measured through enjoyment of class, liking of

an activity, student motivation, or class attendance (Bradford, Mowder, & Bohte, 2016).

Effectiveness is also used to evaluate pedagogical practices but no universally accepted

definition exists: Ahmed and Mahrous (2010) and Kober (2015) use the word effectiveness as

the degree to which a teaching tool contributes to students’ retention of learning or skills. Others

understand effective teaching as one that is more generally focused on students’ learning (Devlin

& Samarawickrema, 2010), or simply as an interchangeable term to the rather vague “good

teaching” (Chan, 2018). Despite differences in definitions, effectiveness is often empirically

measured through students’ grades, acquired skills, transfer of knowledge, or retention of ideas

(Schneider & Preckel, 2017; Mancuso, 2001; Polanco, Calderón, & Delgado, 2004).

Since it is common for pedagogical practices to be uncritically classified as both

engaging and effective, the present study tries to distinguish the two and illustrates how students

make sense of classroom practices they feel are engaging and/or effective—or unengaging and/or

ineffective. Through this research, we aim to clarify the understanding of various pedagogical

approaches employed by higher education faculty, from the perspective of their students. By
knowing this, instructors can adopt practices deemed engaging and effective, be careful with

practices on either categories, and modify practices students find unengaging and ineffective.

Data and Methods

Thirty-two undergraduate students—15 women and 17 men—from a large private university in

the Philippines were interviewed. The university is situated in Metropolitan Manila, the

country’s capital, and its undergraduate campus has more than 8,000 students. The university

also has professional, law, and medical schools but these students were not included in the

present study. Due to the fact that students have to pay tuition fees, the majority of students come

from more affluent circles in the Philippines. Nonetheless, the school has around 20 percent of

its student population receiving some form of scholarship.

Aside from these demographic details, it must be noted that the university has a strong

liberal arts ‘core curriculum’ that all students take regardless of their majors. In other contexts,

these courses are called general education or minor courses, and they often span courses in

languages, arts, philosophy, theology, natural sciences, mathematics, and social sciences. Thus, a

student taking engineering will also have to take these courses in languages and social sciences

as a requirement of the core curriculum.

Semi-structured in-person interviews asked the respondents about their experiences in

college, particularly practices they found useful or engaging, or activities that helped them retain

information or have better skills. Similarly, the students were also asked about practices they felt

were ineffective or unhelpful. Most of these practices refer either to pedagogical strategies used

by the teacher, or assessment strategies to evaluate and/or further learning. In order to get diverse

answers, the researchers decided to do purposive sampling of 32 individuals from different

courses, year levels, and genders.

 One important caveat for this method is that what is categorized as effective teaching is

when students claimed to have learned, and we have no independent measure of their grades or

performance in the class. This is a limitation since studies have shown that students’ self-

assessments do not always align with their actual objective performance (Tousignant &

DesMarchais, 2002; Baxter & Norman, 2011). Although this is certainly a limitation, patterns

were still discerned regarding what college students in general felt were ‘effective’ practices that

helped them retain knowledge and information.

This research has been given research approval by the institutional review board. Before

the interviews, the participants gave their consent by signing consent forms, and in order to

protect their privacy, pseudonyms were used to refer to the people interviewed. After the

interviews, the recordings were transcribed by the research team and were read independently by

the individual team members. During this stage, we found recurring statements and practices that

participants felt they both learned from and enjoyed. Initially, these were recognized as two ends,

with practices students enjoyed and learned from, and those that they did not enjoy and did not

learn from. However, a deeper review of the data revealed that the categorization was not this

clear cut, since there were also some practices that students did not initially like but which they

thought they actually learned from, and there were also practices they initially liked but learned

little from. In order to more deeply analyze this possibility, the data were sorted in a grid with the

y-axis being about the practices that students enjoyed or liked and the x-axis being about the

practices students learned from.

<PLACE FIGURE 1 NEAR HERE>

 The individual members of the team independently categorized students’ answers to see

under which quadrant a particular practice belonged. If there were discrepancies, they were

resolved during a meeting to understand the nuances. After the practices have been categorized

into the quadrants, the team went back to the transcripts to code the interviews and see which

quotes validate the categorization. Aside from highlighting codes that support the hypothesis of

having four quadrants, the research team made a conscious effort to look for practices cited that

might oppose or could not fall under the current categorization. However, despite the students

coming from different courses and year levels, students’ answers were close to each other and

fell into one of the four quadrants.

Results

Interviews with undergraduate students revealed that there were commonalities with what they

thought were pedagogical practices and activities that were engaging and effective, or conversely

those that were unengaging or ineffective. By “engaging,” we mean practices students said they

liked or enjoyed for various reasons, such as their applicability or ease. By “effective,” we mean

practices students said and felt they learned from, developed skills in, or can easily recall lessons

with. Although students are experts at what they find engaging, what is actually effective needs

both objective measures and subjective personal evaluation. Currently, this research only studies

the students’ subjective experience of learning. Thus, when we refer to practices that students

find effective, we qualify them as those practices that were ‘reported effective.’

To create a more intuitive grouping of the practices undergraduate students said they

liked and/or learned from, we grouped them into four main themes: (1) engaging and effective,

(2) unengaging but effective, (3) engaging but ineffective, and (4) unengaging and ineffective.

These are then discussed in turn in the next subsections.

Engaging and Effective

Based on the interviews, students found four practices to be both engaging and effective: (1)

recitations, (2) lectures where the teacher engages with the class, (3) use of real-life applications

and examples, and (4) use of exercises and drills in the classroom.

One practice that participants both liked and reported they learned from was the use of

recitation to deepen students’ involvement in the class. Recitation is understood as teachers

calling volunteers or students to answer certain questions posed. Most said that this practice

happened when faculty members asked for insights, examples or ideas from the students; thus,

supplementing the ideas that have been presented during lectures or activities. For Dan and

Phillip, management economics students, this method helped them retain the information in their

classes because they felt involved and had a stake in it. They both mentioned how even the

failure to answer the instructors’ questions can help in emphasizing certain concepts and

information because they learned from these mistakes. Dan mentioned how, because of this

practice, ideas were better able to “stick” with him.

A legal management sophomore, Diether, thought similarly. He mentioned that recitation

did not only help make students feel engaged, but also helped them feel more comfortable

sharing information with each other. Having the chance to recite without judgement created a

less intimidating environment in the classroom because a teacher usually showed value for the

students’ insights. He said, “[when] inputs were from students, we then understand what each of

us know.” Although many said that being engaged in class recitation was a reported effective

practice, this will be contrasted later to how the practice of graded recitation actually made

students feel terrified and anxious, and thus, had an adverse effect on them.
 Similar to how engaging recitations can enliven a class, many students also valued good,

thought-provoking, and engaging lectures. They preferred and learned from professors who were

able to initiate teaching as a conversation rather than as just ‘pure lecture.’ Students thought of

‘pure lecture’ as instructors just going through the motions of saying information. Many students

contrasted this to lectures that become engaging through the professors’ lively delivery of the

lesson and their body language. Maxine, a psychology major, said that she appreciated “when

[instructors] actually communicate with the class, hindi lang ‘yung LED screen or whiteboard or

blackboard ‘yung kinakausap nila [not as if they’re just talking to the LED screen or whiteboard

or blackboard].” Ignacio, a creative writing senior, stressed that he appreciated and learned from

instructors who made an effort to converse with their students in class and got them engaged in

the ideas being shared. He contrasted this to university instructors who only read from or dictated

the material from their PowerPoint presentations.

Additionally, there were students who cited the use of visual aids as part of engaging

lectures. Timothy, a double-major in communications and theatre arts, said that visual aids, such

as presentations and animations, helped students visualize and understand concepts better. He

also expounded how the use of videos in class helped explain lessons more clearly. In his

communications classes, these videos functioned as tools that concretize the lessons being

discussed in the lectures. However, we qualify that having an energetic personality and providing

engaging visuals did not automatically lead to immediate knowledge retention since such

‘engaging performance’ may be a distraction to the content.

A third example of what the students said belonged to engaging and effective pedagogy is

when teachers were able to provide real-life applications of their lessons. This includes both real-

life scenarios given by the professor, and case studies students can work on. Kyla, a social

sciences major, mentioned how it is best if the professor gave examples. For instance, in her
social sciences class, “[professors] give case studies of real-life situations and national issues.

We are then tasked to research about these cases and find out why certain national issues turn out

the way they do.” Speaking of the importance of having relatable and applicable examples

present in their immediate contexts, she added that “[students] see a concept, but [they] can’t

make sense of it until [they] see how it is applied.” She further explained that being able to

explain and apply the lesson to a situation is actually one determinant of whether she learned the

lesson or not.

Robert and Anthony, both management students, shared the same line of reasoning when

they said that being given examples helped them a lot in encoding and retrieving information.

Anthony elaborated how his professor would not only discuss the concepts and definitions they

needed to learn, but also shared how this applied to different companies. An example he

mentioned was the concept of goodwill, and how a popular milk tea company had earned this

with its choice of having reusable thick plastic cups. Despite having taken the course two years

ago, the fact that Anthony still remembered this lesson made it evident how effective giving

examples can be in helping students retain concepts.

Aside from recitations, engaging lectures, and real-life examples, the students also felt

that exercises done in the classroom can be considered a practice that they felt was both engaging

and effective. Despite being demanding on the students’ cognitive energies, a number of

respondents preferred having exercises in class in order to learn concepts more deliberately. For

courses involving mathematics or statistics, many said that doing the exercises in class was

among the most effective ways of learning those skills. Diane, an information technology

entrepreneurship student, cited that exercises in class were helpful in preparing for math exams

because students learned more about the “how,” rather than just the “what,” of the skills they
needed. On the other hand, Tony, a creative writing student, emphasized that doing exercises in

class allowed instructors to quickly identify and correct students’ mistakes.

In terms of what subjects these in-class exercises were effective in, an art management

student said that drills and exercises were supposedly most effective in classes where people

need continued exposure to the objective details or skills (e.g., math or languages). This student

talked about this observation in the context of language courses such as French and Italian,

where both verbal and written exercises on conjugation, plural forms, articles, and numbers were

necessary.

Unengaging but Effective

Aside from activities that students felt were engaging and effective, students also reported

practices that they did not initially like but ended up helping them learn. One of these was the

practice of slow and repetitive lectures. According to Phillip, a third-year student, a course he

still had sufficient knowledge in was economics. He characterized his economics professor as

engaging, but slow and repetitive in teaching topics like the Leontief inverse. Philip emphasized

that this topic alone was taught for more than two sessions, and he felt that the amount of time

was unnecessary and unengaging. In retrospect, he realized that the repetitions contributed to

why he still remembered this topic in great detail. Dan, a senior in the same course, stated the

same idea in his interview. He mentioned that the topic he believed he has mastered is one that

was also repetitively taught, which was their lesson on the indifference curve. Thus, although the

students did not necessarily “enjoy” the process of having lessons taught more than once, they

did see in retrospect the value of it because it helped them recall ideas, long after their classes

ended.
 Another activity students found initially unengaging but eventually effective was having

a series of quizzes, which meant short tests or exercises that were given at the end of a session, at

the beginning of the following session, or even those before the topic was explicitly taught.

Daisy, a sophomore chemistry major, mentioned that she now preferred to have a series of

quizzes than a single long test at the end of the semester. Although at the time she was taking

quizzes after quizzes she thought that it was cumbersome, Daisy found value in them as a

preparation for long exams. She emphasized that simply going through what she had studied for

the quizzes made her review for the midterm or final examinations a lot easier. Aside from this,

Daisy also mentioned how she learned from her previous mistakes in these quizzes, which she

then got to correct by the time of the longer examinations.

Similar ideas were pointed out by Robert and Dan. The former emphasized how quizzes

were initially time-consuming and an annoyance, but eventually his quizzes helped him gauge

his understanding of the lessons before the long exams. Close to this experience, Dan expressed

that he didn’t (and still doesn’t) like any type of test in general because it meant having to study.

However, he pointed out that quizzes helped because it “forced” him to understand the lessons

and information, little by little.

Another pedagogical practice found to be effective though unengaging was individual

research. Although students did not initially enjoy doing independent study, they nonetheless felt

that independent research was an effective method in terms of letting them remember ideas.

Diether stated that although physically and mentally taxing, doing individual research allowed

him to search for information independently and learn at his own pace. Ian, an art management

student, said that independent research also helped students validate the information being given

in class. He believed that “there is a danger in learning from just one source.” This is echoed by

Timothy, a double-major in communications and theater arts, who also independently chose to
learn from videos, books, and online articles in order to understand lessons that were not clear to

him.

In connection to this, students also found the practice of being assigned readings—along

with a guided discussion in class—to be an effective way to learn. Although many of the

respondents stated that reading made them prone to procrastination and laziness, they were still

able to process the content of the assigned readings because of how it was discussed after. Sage,

a management engineering junior, mentioned that students were more motivated to learn from

readings if they were requirements for class or will be given quizzes on them. However, Diane

pointed out that readings were only effective if they were not too lengthy, and an ample amount

of time was given to read them prior to the class discussion. She also emphasized the importance

of having teachers discuss readings in class in order to aid with comprehension, especially for

English and literature courses.

Engaging but Ineffective

In the previous section, we highlighted practices that students did not initially like but

nonetheless learned from. In this section, we show one practice that some students found

engaging because of it appearing easy to do, yet deemed ineffective in helping them learn or

retain information.

Although students enjoy classes that require pure memorization because of its ease, they

do not think they get much out of them. In these classes, professors simply ask the students to

memorize short phrases, terms, and their respective definitions for class assessments. Daisy, a

sophomore, felt that this practice was ineffective for learning. She emphasized in her interview

that there were many students who enjoy and prefer these types of assessments because of how

they were easy to do, but they were also not helpful in internalizing or retaining information in
the long-term. From interpreting the interviews, however, we qualify that students feel

memorization is ineffective not because of the memorization aspect (which can help with pattern

recognition) but because it does not tie things to a larger context, nor does it promote deeper

understanding.

Unengaging and Ineffective

To complete the quadrant, students said that there were also pedagogical practices considered

both unengaging and ineffective for students’ learning. Among these, three stood out as common

among the students’ experiences: student reporting, graded recitations, and boring lectures.

One practice students disliked and deemed ineffective was their being asked to report on

particular content in front of the class. According to Maxine, reports were useless in both

engaging students and helping them learn. When reports happen, she believed no one really

listened, and that during reporting days, “it’s the day that people cut [their classes] if it’s not your

group [reporting].” Similarly, Diether mentioned that he thought reports were the most

ineffective teaching practice he has experienced. Aside from most students not giving high-

quality presentations, it also appeared as if most of the information was coming from them, and

not from the instructor. He further emphasized that students go to school to learn from professors

and not just by themselves. Some of the literature on student-centered learning will, however,

question this assumption.

Two more respondents thought similarly: Sasha, a senior interdisciplinary studies major,

and Dan, a management economics senior, viewed student reports as an ineffective activity for

student learning. Sasha noted that based on her observations of her classmates and friends,

presenting in class is just “[putting] a slab of words [on the board].” Although she saw them as

avenues to practice public speaking, she did not see any further purpose for better learning. Dan,
on the other hand, reinforced the idea of poor-quality presentations of other groups that the class

did not learn much from. He also believed that student reports were usually lacking, and that it

was the teacher’s job to fill in the gaps in information. This, however, did not always happen.

Another unengaging and supposedly ineffective practice for students was graded

recitation. Many highlighted the difference between lectures with ungraded recitations, and those

with graded ones. Jose, a sophomore student, mentioned that “if [it were] graded, it adds

pressure, so it defeats the purpose.” He further elaborated on this difference by sharing a story

about his two different classes where recitations were done a lot, and how being graded made a

huge difference. On the one hand, he talked about graded recitations in his theology class, where

they were randomly called, and the answers were found in certain parts of the assigned reading.

He noticed how some students’ voices were cracking out of nervousness in trying to find the

right answers. This was because they would get a failing grade for that day if they ended up

answering incorrectly, or not answering at all. Moreover, he also noticed that students tend to

relax and find no interest in listening after they were called.

On the other hand, he also talked about his microeconomics class, where the professor

practiced random recitation as he tried to engage the class in listening intently. He said that their

recitation was not graded but would rather count as low-stakes participation points. If the student

answered incorrectly, the professor tried his best to make them realize the right answer or

explained the right answer in full detail as the class went on. After weighing the two experiences,

he was sure that he learned more in his microeconomics class because he was able to retain more

information from all the times he was called randomly, even more so when his answers were

wrong and corrected. This, however, did not happen for his theology class because of the anxiety

it induced and the quick relief after being called.

 Andrea, a communications senior, added that fear developed in students from being

graded when reciting: “When you’re afraid to go to class because of graded recitations, it doesn’t

help anyone.” Furthermore, Diane expressed her dislike for this practice since she found it

ineffective, especially for students who find it difficult to express themselves due to shyness or

anxiety.

Aside from student reports and graded recitations, students also found boring lectures to

be unengaging and ineffective. Boring lectures may be seen as lectures that make students feel

unmotivated, uninterested, and/or sleepy. Diether mentioned how he gets sleepy if the instructors

just talk, without making an effort to interact with the class.

They also nuanced and provided a distinction between the use of visual aids in engaging

lectures and the use of visual aids in boring lectures. While visual aids are used in both cases,

boring lectures imply that the instructor does not utilize visual aids to “immerse” the class.

Phillip said that he found it extremely boring when the teacher simply sits and reads from the

prepared PowerPoint presentation. Furthermore, Tony also thought that lectures become boring

when instructors do not use visual aids or just paste their lectures on to the slides.

Discussion and conclusions

Many studies that introduce pedagogical practices in higher education often define success

broadly—whether in terms of students saying that they feel involved in a particular pedagogical

practice (liking), or in terms of students acquiring and retaining knowledge or skills (learning)

(Axelson & Flick, 2010; Sherer & Shea, 2011). Conflating liking and learning, or what we term

here as engagement and effectiveness, can lead to certain practices being preferred even when

they are not effective in transferring knowledge and skills to students. Similarly, certain practices
may not be recognized and used because students report to not like them, yet students believe

these methods can help them learn and retain information better.

Thus, this research tried to decouple what pedagogical practices higher education

students like and/or learn from. An implicit assumption in this decoupling is that there are

practices that students feel they like and learn from, and that there are also practices which

students either just like or just learn from. Figure 2 summarizes these practices, as they are

categorized by how students found them supposedly effective and/or engaging. A few important

insights can be gleaned from these results.

<PLACE FIGURE 2 NEAR HERE>

First, a common theme that can be observed from the practices students found effective

and engaging was that they incorporated the context of the students and used this context in order

to make lessons applicable and relevant. Students preferred pedagogical practices like recitation

and engaging class lectures because of how they made students feel that their insights were

valued, especially as these become embedded in the discussion. But more than students

preferring to have their ideas used in the lessons described, they also wanted to hear from the

instructors about how they can use the lessons for their future work and lives (Perin, 2011;

Saunders & Chrisman, 2011). Thus, students were motivated and learned better when they knew

where a particular lesson can be applied. This confirms studies that talk about the need for

instructors to clarify the motivation and relevance of lessons and tasks (Petrová, 2013; Walder,

2017). Another way of making lessons applicable is not just by telling students how it is

applicable but by students themselves being able to do exercises, solve problems, and apply what

they have learned in class through projects or problem sets (Author, 2019).
 In a sense, students prefer and learn from practices that are considered “experiential” in

their broadest categorization (Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012; Thorburn & Seatter, 2015). Students

preferred that they get to communicate their ideas and contexts, that instructors are able to share

their experiences of applying abstract concepts to past and possible future scenarios, and that

students themselves experience the acquisition of these skills in the classroom. This therefore

suggests that students’ understanding of effective and engaging practices is relative to how they

feel involved and motivated in their lessons, which may then affect the retention of information

and the acquisition of skills.

Second, there were also practices that students were initially resistant to, but which they

found in retrospect to have been effective. Included in these were repetitive lectures, quizzes, and

independent research and reading. Looking at the common thread across these practices, we

found that most of these practices (except repetitive lectures) provide greater responsibility of

learning to the students. Since students are not mere passive recipients of knowledge, they will

have to do a lot of independent work, which they may not have been used to and may also find

boring (Sharp, Sharp, & Young, 2018). However, even if students were not initially engaged in

these activities, they do acknowledge that the ideas and skills were retained—likely because of

the ‘experience’ of independently doing them. To explain repetitive lectures, it may be the case

that constant exposure bores the students but this repetition also reinforces the ideas to make

them “stick.” Thus, practices considered unengaging but effective are those that may ask more or

may bore students initially but still let them have reinforced experiences of the lessons,

information, and skills.

Third, there was one practice that students liked but did not help them retain information

or gain skills. Students enjoyed the practice of memorizing facts for quizzes because it was an

easy enough exercise, but it did not help with information retention since they usually forgot
about these ideas the moment the need passes. A common misconception about effective

learning is that it should feel easy. In contrast, recent research about learning clarifies that

situations where students feel adequately challenged produce better results in learning

(Weinstein, Sumeracki, & Caviglioli, 2019). Thus, engaging but ineffective practices may be

considered as those that students find easy but provide little in helping them acquire skills or

retain information.

Fourth, there were practices that students considered ineffective in letting them learn and

also unable to engage or motivate them. These included student reporting, graded recitations, and

unengaging lectures. Common among these practices are the different “barriers” that prevent

learning from happening. For reporting, students just focus on their own report and zone off

when others were reporting. This ineffectiveness may be more a function of the audience rather

than the reporting in and of itself. For graded recitations, students were prevented from learning

because of the anxiety it induced. For unengaging lectures, the manner of delivery was itself a

barrier for individuals to absorb anything from the lessons. Thus, practices considered both

unengaging and ineffective are often those that prevent people from learning or being motivated

to learn.

Although most education research focuses on effective practices and very few focus on

ineffective ones, our research confirms what is known about how unconducive environments,

and unmotivated students and teachers—that is, both environmental and psychological barriers—

can prevent change and learning from happening (Linder, Harris, Allen, & Hubain, 2015; Mupa

& Chinooneka, 2015; Trinidad, 2018). Student reporting, graded recitations, and unengaging

lectures can be ineffective because of how they increase feelings of estrangement and

demotivation. Given that these are what students considered ineffective and unengaging, one

may be tempted to avoid them altogether. However, it may be wiser to change only the parts
students do not enjoy or do not learn from. For example, a faculty member may still have

students report but the issue of students not listening must be addressed in order for this practice

to be effective. Thus, the practical implication is not so much to avoid these practices altogether

but to adapt and modify them.

As this study presents, distinguishing what students find engaging from what they feel

effective can lead to a more critical evaluation of different pedagogical practices. This means

that students’ enjoyment of a new pedagogical practice may not necessarily lead to better

learning, in the same way that an existing practice, which can seem unengaging at face value,

may actually help with students feeling that they learned skills and retained information.

Inasmuch as there are some engaging pedagogical practices that are effective as well (Carini,

Kuh, & Klein, 2006), a careful disaggregation can help instructors and professors use different

practices with greater intentionality and discretion. In the end, good pedagogical practices are

those that show instructors’ intentionality in promoting learning, and this present research

contributes in suggesting which practices may initiate this intentionality.

 References

Ahmed, A., & Mahrous, A. (2010). A Cross-Cultural Investigation of Students’ Perceptions of

the Effectiveness of Pedagogical Tools: The Middle East, the United Kingdom, and the

United States. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(3), 289-306.

Arman, M. S. (2018). Student-centered approach to teaching: It takes two to tango. The Ahfad

Journal, 35(2), 64–71.

Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E., & Weiss, M. (2009). Active Learning and Student-

centered Pedagogy Improve Student Attitudes and Performance in Introductory Biology.

CBE-Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-03-0025

Axelson, R. D., & Flick, A. (2010). Defining Student Engagement. Change: The Magazine of

Higher Learning, 43(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2011.533096

Baxter, P., & Norman, G. (2011). Self-assessment or self deception? A lack of association

between nursing students’ self-assessment and performance. Journal of Advanced

Nursing, 67(11), 2406–2413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05658.x

Bradford, J., Mowder, D., & Bohte, J. (2016). You Can Lead Students to Water, but You Can’t

Make Them Think: An Assessment of Student Engagement and Learning through

Student-Centered Teaching. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 16(4),

33–43. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i4.20106

Brown, G., & Bakhtar, M. (1988). Styles of lecturing: A study and its implications. Research

Papers in Education, 3(2), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267152880030204

Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student Engagement and Student Learning:

Testing the Linkages*. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–32.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9

Chan, W. (2018). Teaching in HIGHER education: Students’ perceptions of effective teaching

 and good teachers. Social Sciences and Education Research Review, 5(1), 40–58.

Cleveland, B.W. (2011) Engaging spaces: Innovative learning environments, pedagogies and

student engagement in the middle years of school (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e602/1e9e1df68311a7374a600c9ec3fb69a9b700.pdf

CohenMiller, A. S., Shamatov, D., & Merril, M. (2018). Effective teaching strategies: A brief

overview. Retrieved from https://nur.nu.edu.kz/handle/123456789/3372.

Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-Centered Teacher-Student Relationships Are Effective: A

Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113–143.

https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298563

Davidovitch, N. (2013). Learning-Centered Teaching And Backward Course Design From

Transferring Knowledge To Teaching Skills. Journal of International Education

Research (JIER), 9(4), 329–338. https://doi.org/10.19030/jier.v9i4.8084

Detlor, B., Booker, L., Serenko, L., & Julien, H. (2012) Student perceptions of information

literacy instruction: The importance of active learning, Education for Information, 29(2),

147-161. https://doi.org/ 10.3233/EFI-2012-0924.

Devlin, M., & Samarawickrema, G. (2010). The criteria of effective teaching in a changing

higher education context. Higher Education Research and Development, 29(2).

Doherty, P. (2017). From Passivity to Interactivity: How the Traditional Lecture has Evolved as

a Method of Instruction. The ITB Journal, 8. https://doi.org/10.214227/DVB3J

Fata-Hartley, C. (2011) Resisting Rote: The Importance of Active Learning for All Course

Learning Objectives. Journal of College Science Teaching. 40(3). 36-39.

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.

https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and Quasi-

Experimental Studies of Inquiry-Based Science Teaching: A Meta-Analysis. Review of

Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206

Granger, E. M., Bevis, T. H., Saka, Y., Southerland, S. A., Sampson, V., & Tate, R. L. (2012).

The Efficacy of Student-Centered Instruction in Supporting Science Learning. Science,

338(6103), 105–108.

Hains, B. J., & Smith, B. (2012). Student-Centered Course Design: Empowering Students to

Become Self-Directed Learners. Journal of Experiential Education, 35(2), 357–374.

https://doi.org/10.1177/105382591203500206

Kain, D. J. (2003). Teacher-Centered versus Student-Centered: Balancing Constraint and Theory

in the Composition Classroom. Pedagogy, 3(1), 104–108.

Kober, N. (2015). Reaching students: What research says about effective instruction in

undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC, US: National Academies

Press.

Lea, S. J., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher Education Students’ Attitudes to Student-

centred Learning: Beyond ‘educational bulimia’? Studies in Higher Education, 28(3),

321–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070309293

Lee, E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-

centered learning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 64(4), 707–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9422-5

Linder, C., Harris, J. C., Allen, E. L., & Hubain, B. (2015). Building Inclusive Pedagogy:

Recommendations From a National Study of Students of Color in Higher Education and

Student Affairs Graduate Programs. Equity & Excellence in Education, 48(2), 178–194.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2014.959270
Mancuso, S. (2001). Adult-Centered Practices: Benchmarking Study in Higher Education.

Innovative Higher Education, 25(3), 165–181.

Mazer, J. P., & Hess, J. A. (2017). What is the place of lecture in higher education?

Communication Education, 66(2), 236–237.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2017.1287411

Mupa, P., & Chinooneka, T. I. (2015). Factors Contributing to Ineffective Teaching and

Learning in Primary Schools: Why Are Schools in Decadence? Journal of Education and

Practice, 6(19), 125–132.

O’Neill, G., & McMahon, T. (2005). Student-centered learning: What does it mean for students

and lecturers? In Emerging issues in the practice of university learning and teaching.

Dublin: All Ireland Society for Higher Education.

Pale, P. (2013). Intrinsic Deficiencies of Lectures as a Teaching Method. Collegium

Antropologicum, 37(2), 551–559.

Parsons, J., & Taylor, L. (2011). Improving Student Engagement. Current Issues in Education,

14(1).

Perin, D. (2011). Facilitating Student Learning Through Contextualization: A Review of

Evidence. Community College Review, 39(3), 268–295.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552111416227

Petrová, Z. (2013). On the relevancy of using Vygotsky’s theoretical framework to legitimize

dialogic teaching/learning. Journal of Pedagogy, 4(2), 237–252.

https://doi.org/10.2478/jped-2013-0013

Polanco, R., Calderón, P., & Delgado, F. (2004). Effects of a problem‐based learning program on

engineering students’ academic achievements in a Mexican university. Innovations in

 Education and Teaching International, 41(2), 145–155.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1470329042000208675

Poot, A., Learning, P., Austin, L. (2011). The Personal Learning Space – Technology enabling

engaging pedagogy, ASCILITE - Australian Society for Computers in Learning in

Tertiary Education Annual Conference, Hobart Tasmania Australia, 4-7 December 2011.

London: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education.

Prince, M. (2004). Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal of

Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-

9830.2004.tb00809.x

Saunders, M., & Chrisman, C. A. (2011). Linking Learning to the 21st Century: Preparing All

Students for College, Career, and Civic Participation. Retrieved from

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED518181

Savery, J. R. (2015). Overview of Problem-Based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions. In A.

E. Walker, H. Leary, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & P. A. Ertmer (Eds.), Essential Readings in

Problem-based Learning. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.

Schmidt, H. G., Wagener, S. L., Smeets, G. A. C. M., Keemink, L. M., & van der Molen, H. T.

(2015). On the Use and Misuse of Lectures in Higher Education. Health Professions

Education, 1(1), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2015.11.010

Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education:

A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 565–600.

https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000098

Sharp, J. G., Sharp, J. C., & Young, E. (2018). Academic boredom, engagement and the

achievement of undergraduate students at university: A review and synthesis of relevant

 literature. Research Papers in Education, online first(0), 1–41.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1536891

Sherer, P., & Shea, T. (2011). Using Online Video to Support Student Learning and

Engagement. College Teaching, 59(2), 56–59.

https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2010.511313

Slavich, G. M., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2012). Transformational Teaching: Theoretical

Underpinnings, Basic Principles, and Core Methods. Educational Psychology Review,

24(4), 569–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9199-6

Slunt, K. M., & Giancarlo, L. C. (2004). Student-Centered Learning: A Comparison of Two

Different Methods of Instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(7), 985.

https://doi.org/10.1021/ed081p985

Stefaniak, J. E., & Tracey, M. W. (2015). An Exploration of Student Experiences with Learner-

Centered Instructional Strategies. Contemporary Educational Technology, 6(2), 95–112.

Stephenson, J. E., Brown, C., & Griffin, D. K. (2008). Electronic delivery of lectures in the

university environment: An empirical comparison of three delivery styles. Computers &

Education, 50(3), 640–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.08.007

Thorburn, M., & Seatter, K. (2015). Asking better questions! A review of the pedagogical

strategies used in one senior level award in Scotland. Journal of Pedagogy, 6(1), 123–

149. https://doi.org/10.1515/jped-2015-0007

Tousignant, M., & DesMarchais, J. E. (2002). Accuracy of Student Self-Assessment Ability

Compared to Their Own Performance in a Problem-Based Learning Medical Program: A

Correlation Study. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 7(1), 19–27.

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014516206120
Trinidad, J. E. (2018). Teacher Response Process to Bureaucratic Control: Individual and Group

Dynamics Influencing Teacher Responses. Leadership and Policy in Schools, online

first, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2018.1475573

Trinidad, J. E. (2019). Understanding student-centred learning in higher education: Students’ and

teachers’ perceptions, challenges, and cognitive gaps. Journal of Further and Higher

Education, online first, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1636214

Trinidad, J. E., & Ngo, G. R. (2019). Technology’s roles in student-centred learning in higher

education. International Journal of Action Research, 15(1). https://budrich-

journals.de/index.php/ijar/article/view/33125

Walder, A. M. (2017). Pedagogical Innovation in Canadian higher education: Professors’

perspectives on its effects on teaching and learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation,

54, 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.11.001

Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Weinstein, Y., Sumeracki, M., & Caviglioli, O. (2019). Understanding how we learn: A visual

guide. London: Routledge.

Whetten, D. A. (2007). Principles of Effective Course Design: What I Wish I Had Known About

Learning-Centered Teaching 30 Years Ago. Journal of Management Education, 31(3),

339–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562906298445

Wright, G. B. (2011). Student-Centered Learning in Higher Education. International Journal of

Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(1), 92–97.

Zepke, N. (2013). Threshold concepts and student engagement: Revisiting pedagogical content

knowledge. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(2), 97–107.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787413481127
Figure 1 - Matrix for Engagement and Effectiveness
 Figure 2 - Matrix for Engagement and Effectiveness of Specific Pedagogies

View publication stats