Students and lecturers described engagement differently in one programme

Updated Sep 07, 2026

Updated, 7 September 2026: We have added the small participant count and clarified that the diagrams represent perceived relationships. The previous headline implied a demonstrated effect on engagement that this design did not test.

What the study reports

Gerrit Crafford and Liezel Frick used Interactive Qualitative Analysis in a Quantity Surveying honours programme at one South African university. All five lecturers participated; five of 26 eligible students volunteered. Separate focus groups and interviews informed two Systems Influence Diagrams.

Students emphasised immediate learning conditions and peer interaction. Lecturers placed departmental conditions upstream and motivation as an outcome. Both accounts included teaching methods and contextual influences, arranged differently.

The diagrams map participants’ perceived relationships. The study did not analyse quantitative indicators such as attendance or completion. A small, voluntary programme sample cannot establish prevalence or prove that a mismatch between perspectives caused disengagement. This briefing draws on the abstract and selected publisher-indexed methods, results and discussion passages; we could not read the complete paper.

A question to take into local discussion

Our suggestion is to ask what each group means when it uses the word engagement. A dashboard measure, a classroom observation and a student’s account may concern different aspects of experience. Ask for examples before treating disagreement as evidence that one group is wrong.

Keep staff and student accounts visible in any discussion record. Identify which proposed explanation could be checked and what evidence would help. A diagram may organise a conversation, but an arrow should not become a causal claim merely because it is drawn between two boxes.

If a course team tests a change, define the intended outcome and how it will be assessed separately from the listening exercise. These are our proposed review steps, not interventions evaluated by this study. The related longitudinal belonging briefing illustrates a different design and should not be used as interchangeable evidence for engagement.

Reference

Crafford, G. and Frick, L. (2026). Reframing student engagement: a systems approach to bridging learner–lecturer dualities. Studies in Higher Education. Published online 19 April 2026. Publisher article.