Abstract
This chapter demonstrates how game theory can be used as a tool to both develop and manage student engagement in higher education. Observations in this paper are applicable to undergraduate study but also more specifically in postgraduate programs that are offered via multiple delivery modes such as the MBA and which will involve coursework. Game theory is a novel approach in the management of higher education and provides significant benefits in designing programs to improve student engagement. The literature of student engagement is reviewed and the importance, methods of development, and management of student engagement in higher education is discussed at the various levels at which it is measured (the national, institutional, and individual teacher levels). The major concepts in game theory and how these are relevant to the classroom are discussed, including the concepts of the relevant “players,” strategies, knowledge, and payoffs available to each player. The chapter then considers how redesigning the classroom changes the context of the game (e.g., changing the knowledge of the various players and/or payoffs) and how such changes can bring about changes in student engagement especially in postgraduate programs with online and/or blended delivery modes.
In order to illustrate the usefulness of this approach, three areas are examined in detail. Firstly, the treatment of students in on-campus, off-campus, and blended learning and the different implications for student engagement are considered. Secondly, the impact of using a game theoretical analysis on the evaluation of student evaluation of teaching (SET) scores and the implication for the management of teachers and the effect on student engagement are discussed. Finally, the effects of various assessment régimes on student engagement and how these might best be managed are considered.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Angelopulo, G. 2013. The drivers of student enrolment and retention: A stakeholder perception analysis in higher education. Perspectives in Education 31 (1): 49–65.
Armstrong, S.J. 1998. Are student ratings of instruction useful? American Psychologist 53 (11): 1223–1224. Retrieved from http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0003-066X.53.11.1223.
Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2001. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bonk, C.J., and C.R. Graham. 2006. The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Bourne, J.R. 1998. Net-learning: Strategies for on-campus and off-campus network-enabled learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning 2(2): 70–88.
Chen, Y., and L.B. Hoshower. 2003. Student evaluation of teaching effectiveness: An assessment of student perception and motivation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 28 (1): 71–88.
Clayson, D.E., T.F. Frost, and M. Sheffet. 2006. Grades and the student evaluation of instruction: A test of the reciprocity effect. Academy of Management Learning & Education 5 (1): 52–65.
Clouder, D.L. 2012. Improving student engagement and development through assessment: Theory and practice in higher education. London: Routledge.
Culver, S. 2010. Course grades, quality of student engagement, and students’ evaluation of instructor. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 22 (3): 331–336.
Dill, D.D., and M. Beerkens. 2012. Designing the framework conditions for assuring academic standards: Lessons learned about professional, market, and government regulation of academic quality. Higher Education 65 (3): 341–357. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-012-9548-x.
Felton, J., J. Mitchell, and M. Stinson. 2004. Web-based student evaluations of professors: The relations between perceived quality, easiness and sexiness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 29 (1): 91–108.
Greenwald, A.G., and G.M. Gillmore. 1997. Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings. The American Psychologist 52 (11): 1209–1216. discussion 1216–1217.
Haskell, R.E. 1998. Academic freedom, tenure, and student evaluation of faculty: Galloping polls in the 21st century. Retrieved from http://ericae.net/digests/tm9809.htm.
Ituma, A. 2011. An evaluation of students’ perceptions and engagement with E-learning components in a campus based university. Active Learning in Higher Education 12 (1): 57–68.
Johnson, R. 2010. The authority of the student evaluation questionnaire. Teaching in Higher Education 5 (4): 419–434.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., Hayek, J. C. (2007). Piecing together the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations. ASHE Higher Education Report, volume 32, number 5. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32(5), 1–182.
Kurantowicz, E., and A. Nizinska. 2013. How students “Stay the Course”: Retention practices in higher education. Studies in the Education of Adults 45 (2): 135–147. Retrieved from eric.
Law, W.-W., and S.-Y. Pan. 2009. Game theory and educational policy: Private education legislation in China. International Journal of Educational Development 29 (3): 227–240.
Leckey, J., and N. Neill. 2001. Quantifying quality: The importance of student feedback. Quality in Higher Education 7 (1): 19–32.
McGettrick, B. 2005. Towards a framework of professional teaching standards: A response to the consultative document “Towards a Framework for Professional Teaching Standards.” Retrieved from http://escalate.ac.uk/downloads/2044.pdf.
McMahon, B., and J. Portelli. 2004. Engagement for what? Beyond popular discourses of student engagement. Leadership and Policy in Schools 3 (1): 59–76.
Morrison, M., A. Sweeney, and T. Heffernan. 2003. Learning styles of on-campus and off-campus marketing students: The challenge for marketing educators. Journal of Marketing Education 25 (3): 208–217.
Nelson, K.J., C. Quinn, A. Marrington, and J.A. Clarke. 2011. Good practice for enhancing the engagement and success of commencing students. Higher Education 63 (1): 83–96. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-011-9426-y.
Niklasson, L. 1996. Game-like regulation of universities: Will the new regulatory framework for higher education in Sweden work? Higher Education 32 (3): 267–282. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00138867.
Oliver, B., B. Tucker, R. Gupta, and S. Yeo. 2008. eVALUate: An evaluation instrument for measuring students’ perceptions of their engagement and learning outcomes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 33 (6): 619–630. Retrieved from eric.
Peacock, M. 2001. Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11 (1): 1–20.
Poundstone, W. 1970. Prisoner’s dilemma. New York: Anchor Books.
Quaye, S., and S.R. Harper. 1970. Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations. 2nd ed. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
Reis, J. and J. Klotz. 2011. The road to loss of academic integrity is littered with SET: A hypothetical dilemma. Paper presented at the 5th Asia Pacific Conference on Educational Integrity, University of Western Australia, Australia.
Schuck, S., S. Gordon, and J. Buchanan. 2008. What are we missing here? Problematising wisdoms on teaching quality and professionalism in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education 13 (5): 537–547.
Stehle, S., B. Spinath, and M. Kadmon. 2012. Measuring teaching effectiveness: Correspondence between students’ evaluations of teaching and different measures of student learning. Research in Higher Education 53 (8): 888–904.
Tiantong, M., and W. Arreeraad. 2013. The comparison of the learning achievements using the online and offline LADS (Learning Activities of Data Structure Course) models. Journal of Education and Practice 4 (4): 79–87.
Tuchman, G., (2009). Wannabe U : Inside the corporate university. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Valsan, C. and R. Sproule. 2008. The invisible hands behind the student evaluation of teaching: The rise of the new managerial elite in the governance of higher education. Journal of Economic Issues. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00213624.2008.11507197.
Zabaleta, F. 2007. The use and misuse of student evaluations of teaching. Teaching in Higher Education 12 (1): 55–76.
Zyngier, D. 2008. (Re)conceptualising student engagement: Doing education not doing time. Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (7): 1765–1776.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this entry
Cite this entry
Cohen, M., Bhattacharya, S., Nabin, M.H., Rafiq, S. (2018). Student Engagement in Postgraduate Education: Using Game Theory to Improve Results. In: Erwee, R., Harmes, M., Harmes, M., Danaher, P. (eds) Postgraduate Education in Higher Education. University Development and Administration. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5249-1_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5249-1_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-5247-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-5249-1
eBook Packages: EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education