Journal of Technical Education Science No.

55 (12/2019)
104 Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education

A STUDY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

AT INDUSTRIAL UNIVERSITY OF HO CHI MINH CITY
Nguyen Thi Thu Trang, Ngo Ngoc Hung, Tran Anh Dung
Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Received 13/03/2019, Peer reviewed 25/03/2019, Accepted for publication 28/5/2019

ABSTRACT
Though being extensively studied and discussed worldwide, ‘student engagement’ defined
as the time and the quality of effort students put into their learning and their involvement in
educationally purposeful activities, has been scarcely explored in Vietnamese scholarly
literature. To make a preliminary exploration of ‘Vietnamese student engagement’, this case
study design research investigated how undergraduate students of Industrial University of Ho
Chi Minh city engaged in their study and other educationally purposeful activities and how
they perceived the level to which they are challenged and supported by their institution. For
data collection, a survey with the participation of 500 students was employed. Data analysis
indicated (i) insufficient student academic effort; (ii) students’ positive perception of lecturers’
teaching practices and the university’s support; (iii) low levels of academic challenge (iv)
limited interactions between students and lecturers and low quality of students’ interactions
with agents of socialization on campus. To promote student engagement, the university should
improve assessment practices, pay more attention to the development of students’ high-order
thinking, integrative and reflecting thinking skills. Moreover, the university should enhance
student - lecturer interactions and create a more friendly campus environment.
Key words: student engagement; educationally purposeful activities; student academic effort;
academic challenge; assessment practices.

tougher and tougher competition for student

1. INTRODUCTION
enrolments among Vietnamese universities
Student engagement defined as the [4], student engagement is worthy of
quantity of time and the quality of effort Vietnamese educators’ and researchers’
students devote to their studies and their attention. However, there have been scant of
active participation in educationally studies on Vietnamese student engagement.
productive activities [1] has been widely This study will investigate how full-time
recognized as a key factor in student learning, undergraduate students of a Vietnamese
personal development and success [2]. public university, Industrial University of Ho
Student engagement is thought to be one of Chi Minh city, engage in activities and
the most useful levers for ‘attracting and conditions that are linked with high-quality
retaining students, satisfying and developing learning by empirical research and what the
them, and ensuring they graduate to become university has done to support their learning.
successful, productive citizens’ under This case study will serve as a preliminary
‘increasingly straitened economic conditions’ exploration of the cultural and educational-
[3, p. 2]. In the Vietnamese context where the specific features and level of Vietnamese
higher education system is facing student student engagement. Based on the findings,
disengagement related problems such as the some suggestions for the enhancement of
university attrition rate on the rise, the decline student engagement will be made. Thereby,
in training quality, the public dissatisfaction the research will make certain contributions,
and doubt about university education, and the both theoretical and practical, to the body of
 Journal of Technical Education Science No.55 (12/2019)
Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education
105

knowledge of Vietnamese higher education. On the other hand, institutions as the

The research will also build a foundation for facilitators of student engagement have to
future research on student engagement in create opportunities and environments that are
Vietnam. conducive for students to become engaged [6].
The measures institutions can implement to
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
promote student engagement include
2.1. The concept of student engagement presenting students high but reachable
The concept of student engagement was intellectual challenge, enhancing the
conceptualized through the work of George interactions of students with major campus
Kuh, one of the most influential and eminent agents (peers, lecturers, and staff), offering
scholars in the field of university student student learning opportunities inside and
learning and success, in the late of 1990s [3]. outside the classroom, and creating a
It was developed from the perspective that supportive campus environment [8].
suggests that students learn, develop and International extensive research confirms the
succeed most from what they do during their impact of student engagement on a wide range
study at university, regardless of their of desired outcomes, including student
pre-university characteristics or the type of cognitive and non-cognitive gains in learning
the university they attend [5]. There have and development, their grades, their
been a variety of definitions of student persistence, their satisfaction [2, 9, 10, 11, 12].
engagement. In the most widely accepted For this reason, student engagement is
definition, student engagement is defined as recognized as a proxy for the quality of
follows: undergraduate education [13].

[s]tudent engagement represents two 2.2. Measurement of student engagement

critical features. The first is the amount In recognition of the importance of
of time and effort students put into their student engagement to student learning and
studies and other educationally success, in 2000, a new student survey with
purposeful activities … The second the main focus on student behaviors closely
component of student engagement is linked with many desired learning and
how the institution deploys its resources personal development outcomes of university
and organizes the curriculum, other education was introduced in the US [3]. Since
learning opportunities, and support then, the survey, now commonly referred to as
services to induce students to NSSE (National Survey of Student
participate in activities that lead to the Engagement), has enjoyed ever-increasing
experiences and desired outcome such popularity. Acknowledged as an instrument
as persistence, satisfaction, learning, necessary for determining the quality of
and graduation. [6, p.44] university education [1], national surveys of
This definition sees student engagement student engagement are annually conducted
as ‘the dynamic interplay’ [7, p. 496] between not only in the US but in many countries, such
students and their institutions produce as Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and
high-quality learning. On one hand, students China.
considered as the agents of student The NSSE content includes two
engagement must learn actively, interact components: behavioral and perceptual
constructively with lecturers and staff, work dimensions [14]. The behavioral component
collaboratively with peers, or involve encompasses student behaviors positively
themselves enthusiastically in enriching linked to desired outcomes, such as
educational experience [1]. They must make collaborating with peers, interacting with
the best use of their university experience to teaching staff and actively participating in
enhance their own learning and development. class and extracurricular activities. The
 Journal of Technical Education Science No.55 (12/2019)
106 Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education

perceptual dimension comprises students’  Quality of Interactions examining how

evaluation of the quality of their students evaluate the quality of their
relationships with agents of socialization on interactions with various members of the
campus, and students’ perception of learning environment;
institutional support for their success. In the
 Supportive Environment exploring
newest version of the NSEE, student
student perceptions of the institutional
engagement is measured by the ten Student
programmes and activities providing
Engagement Indicators. The indicators that
students with opportunities to be
represent the wide range of important aspects
academically and socially engaged [15].
of the student behaviours and experience
include the following: What kind of data to be collected in each
indicator will be presented in more detail in
 Higher-Order Learning investigating the
the Methodology section?
level of the coursework emphasis on
complex cognitive tasks such as The NSSE, as many researchers note,
application, analysis, judgement, and provides institutions with actionable
synthesis; information on student behaviors, measures
of process and institutional environment.
 Reflective and Integrative Learning The data can be used to inform improvement
examining the frequency with which efforts [14] and allow universities to
students engage in reflective and identify areas to be improved and make
integrative learning; necessary interventions. For this reason,
 Learning Strategies focusing on how despite some criticism against the survey,
often students use learning approaches such as its heavy emphasis on student
that enhance their learning and retention; behaviors, its perception of engagement as
the one-size-fits-all notion [16], and its
 Quantitative reasoning measuring the questionable construct and predictive
level of student involvement in validity, the NSSE is accepted as the most
quantitative reasoning activities; reliable and effective survey of student
 Collaborative Learning referring to engagement [14].
student collaboration with peers in 3. METHODOLOGY
performing different learning tasks;
The study was conducted in Industrial
 Discussions with Diverse Others asking University of Ho Chi Minh city in April
students how often they have discussions 2018. Descriptive, case study research design
with people from a different race or with a questionnaire survey was employed to
ethnicity, economic background, obtain a numeric description of student
religious belief and political view than engagement. Cluster sampling was used to
their own; choose a total of 500 students as the
 Student-Faculty Interactions collecting participants of the study. The decision on the
the data on how often students interact sample size was based on the size of the
with lectures in outside class activities, target population that numbers 28, 834
such as extracurricular activities, career students. According to Johnson and
consultation, and discussion about Christensen (2014), if the population
course topics and their academic outnumbers 100,000, only 384 people are
performance; needed for the sample size [17, p. 267]. The
sampling was conducted at the class level.
 Effective Teaching Practices assessing First, 15 classes are randomly selected. Then,
students’ perceptions of their instructors’ the researchers asked the class lecturers for
teaching practices. permission to conduct the survey. The
 Journal of Technical Education Science No.55 (12/2019)
Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education
107

students of the first ten classes accepting the 0.65, the other scales had the alpha level
invitation became the research participants. equal to or greater than 0.70, ranging from
ɑ = 0.70 for Collaborative Learning and
An adapted version of the NSSE’s 2013
Academic Effort to ɑ = 0.85 for Effective
College Survey Report (CSR) was utilized to
Teaching Practices. This result indicated all
collect data. To make the questionnaire be
the scales reached necessary levels of
suitable for the Vietnamese higher education
reliability.
context, some modifications to the CSR was
made, including deleting, changing, and Data collected from the survey were
adding some items, and translating the whole analyzed by SPSS 22.0. Descriptive statistics
questionnaire into Vietnamese language. To (frequencies and percentages) were
validate the questionnaire prior its performed to get an overview of student
employment, the researchers conducted a demographics (gender, academic disciplines)
series of the pilot test. Twenty participants and to describe characteristic features of the
were recruited for the pilot test. First, the engagement of the students of the Industrial
participants were asked to fill out the survey University of Ho Chi Minh city.
forms and noted any points of confusion. Quantitative research approach imposed
Some follow-up discussions with the some limitations to the study. In the next
participants after completing the survey research on Vietnamese student engagement,
forms were set up to elicit their comments on it is necessary to add qualitative data
the survey form’s content, the instructions, collected by interviews or observations.
and the appearance and clarity of the survey These data will provide a more in-depth
form’s layout. They were also invited to understanding of the emotional aspects of
make some suggestions for the improvement student engagement. Future research should
of the survey forms. The final version of the aim at developing a survey that is more
questionnaire consisted of 22 multiple choice suitable for the Vietnamese university
questions with 98 items. A wide variety of context.
response scales was used, ranging from
‘Never’, ‘Sometimes’, ‘Often’, ‘Very often’; 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
or ‘Very little’, ‘Some’, ‘Quite a bit’, ‘Very 4.1 Demographics
much’; to ‘1 to 4’, ‘5 to 10’, ‘11 to 20’, ‘More
than 20’. A sample of 500 full-time
undergraduates participated in this study.
Of the questionnaire’s 98 items, 43 items Demographic information of this study
were chosen to build 10 scales to measure includes student gender and major
student engagement. The construction of 9 of disciplines. Frequencies and percentages
these scales was based on the 2013 NSSE were computed to determine the distribution
Engagement Indicators that denote a wide of these demographic factors in the total
range of key aspects of the student sample. The data revealed that 31% (n = 155)
experience linked to learning and of the survey respondents were males and
development [18]. The other scale, 69% (n = 345) were females. The sample of
Academic Effort, was developed based on the study represented a wide range of
Zhao and Kuh’s Academic Effort measure disciplines. In this study, the academic
[19]. The name of, the included items, and disciplines were divided into two groups:
the data to be collected in each scale are Engineering and Business. Students who
presented in Table 1. majored in Engineering constituted 55.2%
Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients were (n = 276) of the sample. Students taking
used to examine the reliability of the 10 Business as their majors comprised the
scales. Except Learning Strategies having ɑ = remaining 44.8% (n = 224).
 Journal of Technical Education Science No.55 (12/2019)
108 Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education

Table 1. Student Engagement Scales

Theme Scales Items Data to be collected
The extent to which the coursework emphasises
Higher-order more complex, challenging thinking skills, such
4
Learning as analysis, synthesis, judgement, and
application.
The frequency with which students integrate
Integrative the course material with the knowledge they gain
and from other courses, their own prior experiences,
6 and societal issues, as well as make judgments of
Reflective
Academic Learning their own views on an issue, and try to better
Challenge other people’s views by putting oneself in their
shoes.
The frequency with which students identify key
Learning information, key information when reading,
3
Strategies review notes after class and summarize what they
learn from different sources
The frequency with which students use
Quantitative
3 quantitative data to make conclusions, analyze
Reasoning
and evaluate information.
The frequency with which students collaborate
Collaborative Collaborative with peers in different activities, such as
4
Learning Learning explaining course material, preparing for exams,
or working on course projects or assignments
The frequency with which students discuss their
Student-Lect
academic performance, career plans and course
urer 5
topics with teaching staff as well as they work
Experiences Interactions
with lecturers on extracurricular activities
with
Lecturers  The extent to which lecturers are organised and
Effective
prepared, use examples to explain difficult points,
Teaching 5
or provide both formative and prompt and
Practices
detailed feedback.
Students’ ratings for the quality of their
Quality of
4 relationships with peers, lecturers, academic
Interactions
Campus advisors and professional staff.
Environment The extent to which their university emphasizes
Supportive
4 various student supportive programs and
Environment
activities.
Time students spend on class preparation; the
frequency with which students complete tasks
Academic Academic before coming to class; the extent to which
5
Effort Effort students work hard to master difficult contents, to
perform tasks as best as possible, to meet
lecturers’ standards and expectations.
 Journal of Technical Education Science No.55 (12/2019)
Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education
109

Student-Lecturer Interactions was 19.88

4.2 Student Engagement
points lower than that of Effective Teaching
Means and standard deviation was used Practices. The means of this study’s Student
to determine the central tendency and the Engagement scales were much lower than
spread of the Student Engagement scale those of 2018 American Student Engagement
scores. All items in the Student Engagement Indicators. The result of the comparison is
scales were converted to a 60-point scale. As shown in Table 3.
noted earlier, the items in the survey were
Table 3. Mean Comparison of Student
measured by different scales, it is necessary to
Engagement Indicators between Vietnam and
make all items in a cluster calculated on the
the US
same scale. This prevented any item from
exerting a stronger impact on the scale than Student Engagement Means
other items. Furthermore, this allowed Indicators
Vietnam US
comparing this study’s scales with American
student Engagement indicators. Means and Higher-order Learning 28.6 38.4
standard deviation of the 10 scales are Integrative and 30.8 35.4
presented in Table 2 in descending order of Reflective Learning
the values of means. Learning Strategies 33.4 38.3
Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Quantitative Reasoning 24.1 27.1
Scales
Collaborative Learning 33.6 33.8
Engagement Indicators N M SD
Student-Lecturer 18.1 21.5
Effective Teaching Interactions
497 37.99 11.33
Practices
Effective Teaching 38.0 38.6
Supportive Environment 499 36.03 10.63
Practices
Collaborative Learning 499 33.60 10.81
Quality of Interactions 32.8 41.8
Learning Strategies 497 33.40 10.11
Supportive Environment 36.3 36.6
Quality of Interactions 495 32.81 12.50
Source: NSSE 2018 Engagement indicators [20]
Academic Effort 499 31.67 8.70
Reflective and Integrative For further exploration, frequencies and
496 30.81 9.31 percentages were also conducted for
Learning
individual items that constituted the
Higher-order Learning 497 28.63 10.22
Engagement scale. These statistics helped
Quantitative Reasoning 496 24.13 11.57 examine the level of student engagement in
Student-Staff Interactions 497 18.11 10.55 individual activities. The discussion of this
analysis is grouped into 5 themes: Academic
As the findings suggested, students Challenge, Collaborative Learning,
scored highest on Effective Teaching Experiences with Staff, Campus
Practices (M= 37.99), Supportive Environment, and Academic Effort.
Environment (M =36.03), but scored lowest
on Higher-order Learning (M=28.63), 4.2.1 Academic Challenge
Quantitative Reasoning (M= 24.13), and The means of the three indicators in this
Student-Lecturer Interactions (M= 18.11). theme were among the lowest of the ten
The means of the other scales ranged from indicators. These means were much lower
30.81 to 33.60. The extent of engagement than those of the corresponding indicators in
varied markedly from scale to scale, and the 2018 NSSE. The highest differences were
gap between the highest and the lowest scales found in Higher-order Learning and
was large. For example, the mean of Integrative and Reflective Learning. For
 Journal of Technical Education Science No.55 (12/2019)
110 Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education

example, while more than 70% of American use of institutional available resources, and
students thought their coursework actively seeking help from staff and peers.
substantially emphasized higher-order This may help students reach their fullest
learning activities, only more or less 50% of potential.
Vietnamese students had the same opinion.
4.2.2. Collaborative Learning
Remarkably, only 32% of Vietnamese
respondents rated that the coursework This was the only scale whose mean
highlighted applying facts, theories or value was approximately equal to that of the
methods to practical problems or new NSSE 2018’s corresponding indicator (33.6
situations as ‘Very much’ or ‘Quite a bit’ compared to 33.8, respectively). A relatively
whereas 78% of American respondents did so. high percentage of Vietnamese students
Similarly, only 36% Vietnamese students reported engaging in collaborative learning.
regularly combined ideas from different The data suggested that approximately 70%
courses and 56% of Vietnamese students of the survey participants frequently worked
connected ideas from course to prior with other students on course projects or
experience and knowledge. These percentage assignments. More than two-thirds of the
rates were quite low in comparison with the total sample (68.7%) indicated that they
corresponding percentage rates in the NSSE asked other students to help them understand
2018 that was 70% and 84%, respectively. course material. Over half of the students
Descriptive statistics also indicated low (50.1%) regularly prepared for exams by
percentages of students often used discussing or working through the course
quantitative data to make conclusions material with other students while a little
(32.9%), analyze a real problem (30.2%) or lower percentage of the students (49.1%)
evaluate others’ conclusions (30.9%). The offered their peers explanation of course
corresponding percentages of American material. The students’ high engagement in
students were 51%, 38%, 40%. Learning collaborative learning may be generated from
Strategies (M=33.40) had the highest mean in the common practices of collaboration in
this theme. The percentages of the students learning among Vietnamese students and the
who often employed learning strategies university’s wide application of new teaching
ranged from 54.2% to 68.6%. This may result methods such as group work, project-based
from the fact that learning strategies included learning in recent time that gives students
in the survey, such as identifying key more chances to cooperate with their
information, reviewing notes, or summarizing classmates in learning.
lessons after class, are strongly recommended 4.2.3. Experiences with Lecturers
and commonly used by Vietnamese students
at all levels of education. This theme consists of two aspects of
student engagement — students’ perceptions
These findings indicated that Vietnamese of their lecturers’ teaching practices and
students, generally, are not sufficiently students’ interactions with lecturers outside
challenged and supported to be involved in the classroom. The findings yielded a mixed
different forms of deep learning. It is result. Effective Teaching Practices scored the
suggested that the university should enhance highest mean of the ten indicators whereas
higher-order learning and reflective and Student-Staff Interactions had the lowest. In
integrative learning and quantitative terms of teaching practices, over 3/4 of survey
reasoning activities. These activities, as many participants thought their lecturers clearly
researchers [5,7] proposed, present students explained course goals and requirements,
intellectual challenge, thus, stimulate their taught their courses in a well-organized way
learning interests and require them to become and used examples to explain difficult points
more engaged with their study through (76.9%, 82.9%, and 76.1%, respectively).
spending more time studying, making better This indicated the high quality of teaching
 Journal of Technical Education Science No.55 (12/2019)
Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education
111

practices in this university. Moreover, nearly relationship with other members of the
2/3 of students (61% and 64%) believed that university, including peers, lecturers,
their lecturers provided them with sufficient academic advisors, and professional staff.
formative feedback and prompt and detailed Less than half of the total sample (44.2%)
feedback on their tests and assignments. found their relationship with peers excellent.
This rate considerably reduced when students
Contrary to positive responses to the
evaluate the quality of their interactions with
teaching practices, students responded
lecturers (17.2%), academic advisors (19.3%),
negatively to questions about their
and professional staff (12.6%). These
interactions with teaching staff. Data revealed
percentage rates were quite low when
that Vietnamese students had extremely
compared with the American students’ ratings
limited interactions with teaching staff. To
on their relationship with lecturers (56%),
illustrate, only 13% and 14% of the
academic advisors (51%) and professional
respondents regularly discussed their career
staff (41%). This suggested a need for the
plan and their academic performance with
university to improve working and social
lecturers. The corresponding percentage rates
relationships between students and their peers,
in the US were 44% and 35%, respectively.
teaching staff and professional staff. A
More than a quarter of students (26.7%) had
friendly and supportive campus environment
in-class discussion on course topics, ideas, or
may promote a student sense of belonging,
concepts with teaching staff, but the rate
increase student satisfaction and persistence,
decreased to 18.4% for outside class
and have a positive influence on outcomes [2].
discussions. The limited student-lecturer
interactions may be caused by the restriction 4.2.5. Academic Effort
of lecturers’ availability to students and the The student responses to the items within
hierarchical and formal relationship between the indicator Academic Effort yielded mixed
students and lecturers. The former lessens results. On one hand, nearly 3/4 of the total
students’ chances to contact with lecturers, sample (71.1%%) frequently worked hard to
the latter does not promote students’ informal master difficult content and 85% of the
interactions with staff outside the classroom respondents tried best to complete their
setting. As student-lecturer interactions assignments at the highest possible degree.
strongly and positively correlate with student On the other hand, over half of the students
intellectual growth, attitudes and values, admitted that they did not often complete
educational achievement, and career choice readings or assignments before class or
and development [2], it is necessary for the worked harder than they could to meet their
university to promote the student-lecturer teachers’ standard or expectation (56%,
interactions. 59.3%, respectively). The majority of the
4.2.4. Campus Environment respondents (68.7%) spent less than 15 hours
on class preparation in a typical week. A
Students’ evaluation of the two aspects in
further calculation using the midpoints of
this theme: Quality of Interactions and
response ranges indicated that the students
Supportive Environment was contradictory to
averaged 12 hours preparing for class. This
each other. The majority of students thought
was significantly less than the expectation
that they received substantial support from
that students should spend at least 20 hours
their institutions to help them succeed
per week studying at home. These findings
academically, do well socially, and effectively
showed that students did not devote much
deal with financial and non-academic issues
effort to their study. This is consistent with
(60.9%, 70.9%, and 57.1%, respectively). This
complaints about Vietnamese students’
demonstrated students’ high appreciation of
neglect of and laziness in their learning [21,
the university’s support. However, students
22]. A number of reasons can be given for
did not highly rate the quality of their
student insufficient effort, including
 Journal of Technical Education Science No.55 (12/2019)
112 Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education

 The strong focus on summative assessment characteristics. They include Vietnamese

more than on formative assessment. In this tradition of good but dominantly didactic
university, the midterm test and final teaching; the common practice of
examination represent 80% of the final grade collaboration among students and the
of a particular course. Class participation and university’s application of new teaching
other assessment tasks contribute to the methods; the restricted availability of
remaining percentage. This disproportion lecturers and the formally hierarchical
could lead to the fact that students who relationships between students and staff, both
neglect their study throughout the semester teaching and professional; and the prevalence
but expend their time and effort on studying of summative assessment.
just before examinations can easily pass the To promote student engagement, first, the
course. Data showed that 65.5% of the university should improve assessment
respondents acknowledged that examinations practices that should put more emphasis on
greatly challenged them to do their best formative and continuous assessment. It is
work. This phenomenon is also noted by suggested that the more tasks, assignments
Chinese researchers when measuring Chinese given to students, the more time and effort
student engagement [23]. students will put in their study. Then, students
 Low levels of academic challenge. As are forced to work hard throughout the
previously mentioned, without being semester, not only before examinations. The
intellectually challenged, students do not increased quantity of tasks may considerably
exert enough effort and time to broaden their expand lecturers’ workload. This can be
knowledge, to meet the course’s solved by the utilization of online learning
requirements, and to reach their fullest management systems or the employment of
potential. teaching assistants who are in charge of
supporting lecturers with instructional
5. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS responsibility, assisting and supervising
This study described the nature and the students in class, and marking students’ tasks
level of undergraduate student engagement in and homework. Second, the university’s
Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh city. course work and examinations should
The data revealed both positive and negative emphasize higher-order learning and
aspects of this university’s student reflective and integrative learning tasks. Such
engagement. On one hand, students believed kinds of tasks pose students with greater
that they experienced a high level of effective intellectual challenge, stimulate their learning
teaching practices, received relatively interests and require them to become more
sufficient supports, both academic and engaged with their study through spending
non-academic, from the university, and more time studying, making better use of
actively participated in collaborative learning institutional available resources, and actively
activities. On the other hand, the data reported seeking help from staff and peers. Last but not
students’ limited interactions with lecturers, least, the university should improve the
their negative perceptions of their relationships between students and other
relationships with major agents of agents of socialization on campus to create a
socialization on campus, and their low levels more friendly campus environment.
of engagement in various forms of deep
In conclusion, the university should
learning. More worryingly, the results of the
adopt more student-centered and
analysis indicated that the university’s
learning-focused approaches to its policies
students did not devote adequate time and
and practices in teaching and learning with a
effort to their learning. These features
stronger emphasis on the promotion of
basically result from the specific university’s
student engagement and thus could improve
characteristics as well as Vietnamese cultural
its quality of training.
 Journal of Technical Education Science No.55 (12/2019)
Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education
113

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT offered to this research project according to

the Scientific Research Contract No
The researchers wish to express our deep
18/HĐ-ĐHCN, code 18.CB 01.
sense of gratitude to Industrial University of
Ho Chi Minh city for the financial support

REFERENCES
[1] Coates, H.., The value of student engagement for higher education quality assurance,
Quality in Higher Education, 11 (1), pp. 25-36, 2005.
[2] Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T., How college affects students : a third decade of
research, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2nd edn, 2005.
[3] Trowler, V., Student engagement literature review, York: Higher Education Academy, 2010..
<https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/studentengagementliteraturereview.pdf>.
[4] Nguyễn Thị Thu Trang & Đỗ Văn Dũng, Student Engagement – a promising solution to
quality improvement of Vietnamese higher education, Journal of Technical Education
Science, Ho Chi Minh city University of Technology and Education, 47 (5), pp. 85 -91, 2018.
[5] Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J.H., Whitt, E.J. & Associates, Student success in college:
Creating conditions that matter, 1st edn, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.
[6] Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J.A., Bridges, B.K. & Hayek, J.C., Piecing together the
student success puzzle: research, propositions, and recommendations, ASHE Higher
Education Report, 32 (5), pp. 1-182, 2007.
[7] Krause, K-L. & Coates, H., Students' engagement in first-year university, Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 33 (5), pp. 493-505, 2008.
[8] Kuh, G.D., The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual and empirical
foundations, New Directions for Institutional Research, 5-20 (141), pp. 5-20, 2009a.
[9] Carini, R.M., Kuh, G.D. & Klein, S.P., Student engagement and student learning:
Testing the linkage, Research in Higher Education, 47 (1), pp. 1-32, 2006.
[10] Pike, G.R., Kuh, G.D., McCormick, A.C., Ethington, C.A. & Smart, J.C., If and when
money matters: the relationships among educational expenditures, student engagement
and students' learning outcomes, Research in Higher Education, 52 (1), pp. 81-106,
2011.
[11] Coates, H., Beyond happiness: managing engagement to enhance satisfaction and
grades, Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), 2008.
[12] Kuh, G.D., Cruce, T.M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J. & Gonyea, R.M., 2008. Unmasking the
effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence, The Journal
of Higher Education, 79 (5), pp. 540-563, 2008.
[13] Kuh, G.D., What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement,
Journal of College Student Development, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 683-706, 2009b.
[14] McCormick, A.C., Kinzie, J. & Gonyea, R.M., Student engagement: Bridging research
and practice to improve the quality of undergraduate education, in M.B. Paulsen (ed),
Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. 28, Springer Netherlands,
pp. 47-92, 2013.
[15] National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), A fresh look at student
engagement—annual results 2013. , IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary
Research, Bloomington, 2013.
<http://nsse.iub.edu/NSSE_2013_Results/pdf/NSSE_2013_Annual_Results.pdf>.
[16] Krause, K-L., Student engagement: a messy policy challenge in higher education, in I
Solomonides, A Reid & P Petocz (eds), Engaging with learning in higher education,
Libri Publishing, Oxfordshire, pp. 457-474, 2012.
 Journal of Technical Education Science No.55 (12/2019)
114 Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education

[17] Johnson, .B & Christensen, L.B., Educational research : quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches, 5th edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif, 2014.
[18] National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), NSSE 2013 Engagement Indicators
NSSEville State University, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research,
Bloomington, 2013b.
<http://nsse.indiana.edu/2015_Institutional_Report/pdf/NSSE15%20Engagement%20In
dicators%20(NSSEville%20State).pdf>.
[19] Zhao, C-M. & Kuh, G.D., Adding value: learning communities and student
engagement', Research in Higher Education, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 115-138, 2004.
[20] National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), NSSE 2018 Engagement indicators,
NSSE, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, Bloomington, 2018.
Available at
<http://nsse.indiana.edu/2018_Institutional_Report/pdf/NSSE18%20Engagement%20In
dicators%20(NSSEville%20State).pdf>
[21] Nguyen, T.T.T, Student engagement: A useful quality concept in the Vietnamese
Higher Education (PhD Thesis), 2016.
[22] Tran, T.T., Is graduate employability the ‘whole-of-higher-education-issue?, Journal of
Education and Work, pp. 1-21, 2014.
[23] Zhang, Z., Hu, W. & McNamara, O., Undergraduate student engagement at a Chinese
university: a case study, Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 27
(2), pp. 105-127, 2015.

Corresponding author:
Nguyen Thi Thu Trang
Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City
Email: [email protected]
Ngo Ngoc Hung
Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City
Email: [email protected]
Tran Anh Dung
Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City
Email: [email protected]