Student Engagement and the Role of Technology

Abstract

This paper examines our collective exploratory research on Anthropology and Sociology students at Concordia University. As teaching faculty members at Concordia, we have all observed a significant shift in our student population over the past fifteen years. They appear to be more detached and less involved in their studies, a phenomenon that has piqued our collective curiosity. Our first insight into the possible reasons behind this shift came from Rob Beamish’s The Promise of Sociology (2010), where he explored the relationship between technology and knowledge. Inspired by Beamish, we sought to understand the relationship between technology and students’ performance. At the beginning of this research, we never imagined that the world would be under lockdown because of a pandemic (2020–2022) and forced to rely on technology; anyone teaching at the height of COVID-19 was obligated to use technology, which makes Beamish’s argument an even more relevant place to start. Lastly, we delved into the potential impact of technology on students’ health.

1. Introduction

Universities, like all institutions, as Martin suggests [1], occupy very similar organisational fields in that they are fields of planned ambitions—yet they can also be unstable fields where the “ground is in motion”. When educational institutions in Canada are considered, the neoliberal turn has changed the academic environment, which Henry Giroux calls a War on Higher Education [2]. Some would suggest it has become retooled as an adjunct of business and worker production. Nevertheless, student engagement and its link to technology have become recurring themes in discussions regarding this educational field; that is, students’ detachment from the academic process [3,4]. Thus, our original hypothesis was that the primary reason for students’ lack of engagement stems from technology. As university teachers, all of our classes are equipped with multi-media devices that we can use for our lectures, and since our experience with COVID-19, some of our courses are still delivered solely online. Nevertheless, we are increasingly noticing various in-class distractions, coming from phones, laptops, and other devices in the classroom, and recognise their habit-forming nature. However, the question remains: does this that mean our students are disengaged? As we perused the literature, including Concordia’s National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE [5], (origin; Indiana, USA), a nagging concern surfaced: what does being engaged mean?

The 2012 Montréal student protest), dubbed the Maple Spring, was eye-opening. Certainly, with thousands of students on the streets demanding free education, a lack of engagement did not seem to be the operative term; hence, our doubts surfaced about the concept and our hypothesis. We began the search for a more complete analysis. The Maple Spring revealed the tension-ridden relationships between students in post-secondary education and the social world, specifically the labour market, which has undergone far-reaching transformations. The post-COVID-19 years are even more unstable for many of our students. To understand these transformations, we require more knowledge about the lives of students today, as well as the role of technology in their lives. Concerns about the ubiquitous presence of technology in education and the contrast between imparting information, such as that found on Google and Wikipedia, and constructing knowledge [6] were the impetus for beginning this ongoing research. Therefore, with the persistent comments about students’ lack of interest and their difficulties keeping pace with university-level work or the indications of simple boredom, following others, in 2014, we began to investigate these trends as disengagement. But what does it mean to be disengaged? Are our students disengaged? How can we answer this question without a clear definition of what engagement is in the first place? While conducting this exploratory research, it became clear that the concept of engagement is open-ended. Engagement, as with many other concepts in sociology or anthropology, has become a carry-all, a term that, for many researchers, does not need to be defined [7,8]. Therefore, as Sheppard posits, we need to elucidate “what is and what is not included in engagement, because as of now, the concept is theoretically messy and due to a lack of clarity, it suffers from being everything to everybody” [9] (p. 111). Therefore, drawing on Fredericks et al. [10], we define engagement as a multifaceted term encompassing commitment, attraction and involvement, and participation.

We surmised that this multifaceted term needs to be examined in a tripartite manner, viz., by unpacking its cognitive, behavioural, and emotional components. Cognitive engagement involves the investment and willingness to exert the necessary effort to understand and comprehend ideas and master skills. Behavioural engagement supports the participation in activities that lead to positive academic and learning outcomes. Emotional engagement comprises the positive and negative responses to the academic environment, i.e., teachers, classmates, and academic activities. Hence, this exploratory research aims to (a) deepen our understanding of student engagement beyond the general indicators of a Concordia University survey on student engagement NSSE. Therefore, the present endeavour aims to fill these lacunas); (b) present a working definition of engagement; (c) explore the link between technology and student engagement; (d) explore the link between stress and performance; and, lastly, (e) offer directions for further research post-COVID-19.

2. Literature Review

The Millennials

For educators, any discussion about teaching must begin with identifying ourselves and our student cohort. We are part of what is called the Boomer generation (born 1946–1964), whereas our current students are primarily considered to be Generation Z, born after 1997 (PEW Research Center; the years may differ in the literature). The belief that meaning can be apprehended without considering the research–researcher relationship variable is still attractive. To think that way, however, is to reject the undeniable social nature of data collection procedures [11] (p. 798), [12] (p. 94), [13] (p. 608). As Bourdieu suggests, we must reflexively state the position from which our voices are articulated. This means there is always a collaboration between the researcher and the participants [14] (pp. 68–86), [15] (p. 388). Thus, we concur with Warren and Karner [16] (p. 6) and Duperré [17] (p. 102): relating to an unmediated reality is impossible. Hence, conscious of the rigour imposed by the scientific method, we understand the need to always be aware of our position’s difficulties. Both of us had a clear position at the beginning of the research: Tremblay never hid her irritation about the use of cell phones and other technological devices in class; as for Hess, as an early adopter of a cell phone (1988), the change from a necessary tool to a continuously attached and intimate social device was astounding and somewhat disturbing. These observations are based on our experience as teaching faculty. We have been teaching at Concordia for over 25 years and each semester brings 250 to 300 hundred students between us. We are not denying the usefulness and practicality of technology. Still, we remain concerned about its effect on our students’ capacity to focus on reading and analysing complex issues.

Our groups of students have come to be known as the Millennials and Generation Z. The Millennials refer to students born after 1982 and Generation Z after 1995 [18]. As Joel Bakan [19] summarises that the end of the 20th century was a culmination of the century of the child, where childhood came to be seen as a unique and vulnerable time of life. This was instilled internationally by the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child in 1959 [19] (pp. 7–8). Thus, by the end of the 20th century, the social environment of the North American so-called ideal family became increasingly child-centred, with its accompanying maternal ideals [20] (p. 129). Not only were millennial children increasingly desired, since with access to effective pharmaceutical birth control, childbearing had become a realistic choice for many women in the 1960s, but many children were also receiving unrealistic praise. Self-esteem was a talk show and dinner-table conversation topic in the 1980s, but by the 1990s, it was everywhere [21] (p. 44). Children were not to be criticised, and failure was to be avoided for fear of damaging their self-esteem. Praise was highly recommended, and the development of serious life skills such as cooking, cleaning, shopping, budgeting, or responsibility at any level of serious endeavour was neglected. According to Blumenfeld et al., “Education serves two separate but equally important functions: it imparts knowledge and socializes citizens” [22] (p. 174)—citizenship comes with responsibility. Hence, Twenge and Campbell [23] (p. 680) posit that young people today will take a more individualistic approach to life and postpone adulthood that comes with increased responsibilities.

Their Baby Boomer parents, many of them a product of the human potential movement and the self-realisation cultural trends of the 1960s and 1970s, were pivotal in supporting the “do whatever makes you happy” trend [18,24]. Hence, they preferred to be friends rather than parents, supporting and encouraging more than restraining and teaching. Children, particularly in North America, were increasingly protected and reassured by their hovering helicopter parents [24] (p. 112). Further, as Haidt [25] (pp. 6–7) explains, the 1980s were the beginning of the transition from a play-based childhood to a phone-based childhood. With increased parental fears (societal concerns of predators, etc.) leading to overprotection and restrictions of autonomy in the real world, unsupervised outdoor play declined, and computers entered the social space. Haidt emphasises that children need free play to thrive because the conflicts and challenges faced there will “inoculate” them for bigger challenges later in life. Simultaneously, children’s lives were becoming increasingly scheduled. As two working parents became necessary to support the modern lifestyle, middle-class children were circumscribed by daycare, tutors, and extracurricular activities, such as dance, sports, summer camps, etc. The key element for parents was ensuring that their children had a competitive edge for the future [26] (p. 11). For more disadvantaged or single working parents, the latchkey [24] (p. 112) and the TV maintained the child until the parent arrived home; however, in the last 20 years, the Internet has taken on the “babysitting” and educating role and has become the common experience for all social sectors, which brings us to discussing what we think is our typical university student, today, i.e., Millennials and post-Millennials, namely Generation Z.

Beamish draws from the Beloit College Mindset list and Michael Wesch’s [27] work (2007) to describe the early 21st-century world of 18-year-olds entering university. He noted that these students are increasingly “tolerant, global, and technologically hip” but have difficulty budgeting time independently. Furthermore, their sense of self-entitlement underscores their lack of self-reflection and self-criticism [4] (pp. 5–6). As a colleague states: “students come to school to be reaffirmed that ‘they are great’”. There is a kernel of truth in these words as for some of our students, the possibility of not being perfect seems to be dramatic. The initial literature search revealed studies suggesting that students often spend less time studying, entering what some have called the “grade game” by trying to achieve the best results for the least effort [4] (p. 12). Similarly, Gupta et al. posit that “students are more concerned about their rights, focusing more on having a degree and not being a learner” [28] (p. 3). Although this view has been challenged the fact remains that many of our students’ focus remains clearly on grades. As clients, their studying time and the rigour of their critical thinking, analysis, and knowledge [29] (p. 5) have decreased and seem to become secondary to grades. With Gen Z, this trend continues, and universities support it with their student/client approach to education.

As Haidt [25] (p. 6) notes, Gen Z was the first generation to go through puberty with “the portal in their pockets that called them away from the people nearby”. As a result, they have experienced the four harms affecting their development in multiple social, emotional, and cognitive abilities: social deprivation, sleep deprivation, attention fragmentation, and addiction [25] (pp. 139–141). Indeed, too many students come to class unprepared and unable to concentrate for adequate periods of time.

For many students, the digital world has become dominant, and according to Beamish, this diminishes their capacity to concentrate on reading texts, so they often rely on Google or Wikipedia. Over the last 15 years, almost all of their lifetime—from the iPhone in 2007 to viral social media (“like” and “share”) in 2009 and self-image posting in 2010—students have never been without some sort of mediated or digital stimulation. As researchers, we find this omnipresent digital world of special interest because there has been a transition in cognitive studies surrounding these students. Many have argued that the actual brain is changing in these millennial students and post-millennials [30] (p. 190). Although the brain has always undergone changes, it is important to specify the changes linked to the technological revolution. As a biological anthropologist, Hess has been reading some of the neuroscience literature on the changing brain; the following section introduces her findings Haidt [25] states that the brain has been “rewired”. Previously, the brain was considered finished and stable at human maturity, i.e., brain cells grow, peak, and degrade [8] (p. 128). Now, with a major shift in the history of ideas, it is recognised that the brain undergoes continuous changes both at the level of neurotransmitters and with cellular connections, reinforcing some and pruning others [31]. Now people are exhorted to use it or lose it, or to try learning something new, whatever your age, etc. Small and Vorgan [32] indicate that brain changes can be seen through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), revealing activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex when students are searching on Google; further, in computer-naïve subjects, these areas also began to be active after five days of practice. This brain area, the prefrontal cortex, predominately handles abstract thought and organises sensory information for understanding social cues and the intentions of others [33]. Thus, the brain is on high alert with increasingly new and varied stimulation while working to integrate complex information and provide the basis for decision-making. Perhaps this alertness can be compared to dangerous situations with no menace. Ultimately, these students have changed brains; in fact, Small and Vorgan [34] argue that the excessive stimulation that students of all ages are experiencing underlies the increase in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and irritability in adolescents. Small and Vorgan go on to argue that the high stress produced by the constant flow of information, visually and aurally, is the source of student fragility and breakdown. As a result, this digital generation thrives on multitasking and constantly connecting, as they state, “24/7” [35]. Many students recognise the addictive nature of instant gratification through new information and interests, such as those found on Facebook and, more recently, on Instagram and others. Because the human brain is not only geared toward sociality but also likes novelty, these new gadgets accelerate the process, such that video games and computer apps become essential rewards. These incentives often interfere with class work, which becomes noticeable while marking assignments. Indeed, it becomes evident that only a small percentage of our students have completed the readings; too many give opinions and reveal a lack of critical thinking and analysis. But does this mean they lack engagement? Again, the nagging question remains: what is being engaged? Therefore, we agree with Beamish [4] that it would be impossible to understand our students without paying attention to the digital world [26].

In brief, with the many issues raised concerning the changing educational system, four factors reflected social, economic, and political influences: (1) policies based on a belief that a university education is better than all other forms of job training [4] (p. 13), [36]; (2) parent/student backgrounds and expectations are key to success at university [37]; (3) the changing role of the university [6,38]; and (4) the pivotal role of technology [4,6]. These factors influence our students and their relationship with what John Levi Martin (2003) calls “fields of organised striving”. We now turn to our theoretical framework.

3. Theoretical Framework

Field theory allows us to account for the conviction Durkheim as well as many others had that there was something “more” out there—some social whole that penetrated us—without our being forced to recapitulate Durkheim’s famous difficulties in specifying exactly what this thing was [1].

(p. 14)

3.1. Field Theory

Following Martin, we ask, “What is the social logic to the social goal held by actors” [1] (p. 20)—the goal being higher education, which is, in Bourdieu’s sense, a field. We imagine this field as a structure of objective relationships permitting the accounting of concrete forms of relations. With the number of students registering for higher education, we must conclude that these individuals have accepted that university is a field worth struggling with. As is often recognised, the university field consists of relationships between actors antagonistically oriented toward the same prizes or values or as a field of contestation—a battlefield. If the field is a battle, we begin to comprehend that the issue underlying education today is the assignment of persons to jobs [1]. Thus, students willingly enter what theorists call a field of “organised striving”. Or do they? Higher education comes with expectations unknown to many students who enter university with uneven amounts of resources—cultural, social, and economic capital [13]—and find themselves at a loss. We are aware of the debate surrounding Bourdieu’s usage of the term; nonetheless, it is instinctively the best theoretical frame for our exploration.

Field theory imagines the structure that students are entering is not static; rather, the field is alive, and it is a “ground in motion”, which we suggest then moves with competition from different institutions, in job markets, and as regional and global changes occur [1] (p. 27). Field theory allows us to focus on the concrete, seize this ground in motion, and analyse what Martin considers a “turbulent field” [1] (p. 27), while considering that other elements do not change. And this is critical to make sense of our student population.

3.2. The Institutional Field as the Battleground

Within the university, you can study without waiting for any efficient or individual result […]. It’s perhaps the only place within society where play is possible to such extent. (Derrida on higher education)

From the above quote, we can infer that Derrida’s view on education would be considered elitist, i.e., that higher education is an end. The liberal university “was more culture-centred than training centred” [39] (p. 144), whereas the 21st century institutional field has become a training centre, and we do not play anymore. We enter a game with goals and conflicts [1,8] (p. 27). We use the image of the game as G.H. Mead intended, which comes with rules and expectations [8] (p. 24). Individuals must navigate the field, and actors must battle for limited rewards [1] (p. 20), e.g., grades, reference letters, awards, and grants. A position in the field is a “vector of potential force, and these vectors are neither identical nor randomly distributed” [1] (p. 4); certainly, job markets and social science disciplines are often incongruent. Field theory allows us to explore the organisation of forces and contradictions of the field—why spend energy and capital on a highly unsure project? There must be something else! What is the social motivation? Can we infer that lack of attention, focus, or disengagement may result from contradictions within and between fields? To consider this question and understand students confronting this university field, we needed a clear definition of engagement, bringing us to our next section.

3.3. Engagement

Fredricks et al. [10] (p. 61) define the engagement concept based on three dimensions, namely cognitive, behavioural, and emotional, and each of these aspects demands different measurements. Although these three dimensions are “dynamically interrelated within the individual”, it is essential to define each dimension.

Cognitive engagement involves the investment and willingness to exert effort to understand and comprehend ideas and master skills. Thus, cognitive engagement’s main points are self-regulation and preparation [10] (p. 63). This means managing one’s time and planning accordingly. This dimension, especially when reading class material, is the most challenging, even for seasoned readers. In addition, Fredrick et al. [10] add attitude to their survey, which we posit could be described as a mindset triggered by the emotional dimension (cost/reward). We can add one more layer to this cognitive engagement concept related to the motivational literature—personal interest, which includes why students take a course.

Behavioural engagement includes extracurricular activities that lead to positive academic and learning outcomes. This dimension entails positive conduct and comprises three definitions: (a) following the norms of higher education; (b) exerting effort, asking questions in class or during office hours; and (c) participating in school activities [10] (p. 62).

Emotional engagement comprises the positive and negative responses to the academic environment, including relationships with teachers and classmates, and addresses the affective rejoinders in the classroom [10] (p. 63). Emotions such as boredom and anxiety come to mind; however, this dimension is also conceptualised as identification. Identification comprises a feeling of belonging to the university and appreciation of success in school-related outcomes—the value. This is a dimension that has been ignored and Bourdieu would be important here. Theories on values include four distinctions: the interest, the importance of completing a task well, validating the feature of one’s self-schema (attainment value), the importance of the task for future goals, and negative aspects of engaging in the task; that is, the costs [10] (p. 63).

Guided by a clear definition of engagement, we are now able to rethink and abandon our earlier hypothesis, that the primary reason for students’ lack of engagement stems from technology and its distracting, habit-forming elements, and search for a more complete analysis because by focusing on a specific mechanistic explanation, we have limited our research.

4. Method

Drawing on Fredrick et al.’s [10] definition of engagement, this research aimed to (a) go beyond the NSSE—Our insistence on this point is important since we were refused financing based on the argument that this research “had been done”, and (b) explore the possible link between technology and so-called student disengagement. The lack of resources forced us to abandon the initial idea of comparing at least two disciplines; thus, the focus was primarily on Sociology and Anthropology students. Further, we had to reduce the number of focus groups due to limited physical and financial resources.

Mixed methodologies were used. When researching student engagement, “assessment scholars recommend employing multiple methods and obtaining evidence from multiple sources to obtain a comprehensive understanding of student progress, success, and institutional performance” [40] (p. 29). Data collection was performed on two occasions, informally for the first time in the academic years 2012–2016 and more formally in 2021–2022. Approximately 116 students were questioned in the initial clicker-in-class survey, and we held three focus groups in 2021. Other data included students’ responses to class activities and a series of observations of student behaviour in the library. The complete report is over 70 pages done voluntarily by Zenas Kuate Defo an Anthropology student.

We used the clicker system to test questions and ideas. The university has promoted this US-developed, student-response device to be used in classrooms for attendance, practice in multiple choice questions, quizzes, etc. It is valuable for this research because it gives immediate feedback, but some restrictions are clear due to class time limits and only five response choices. Nevertheless, five classes were surveyed, four in sociology/anthropology and one in economics, with a total of 116 students. The students were relatively equally distributed in the different years of study; 70% were under the age of 24, and 58% were female, while 42% were male.

Colour coding was used to analyse verbatim transcripts of the three focus groups as qualitative data. Existing theories on student engagement also helped to frame and construct the coding system. A deductive approach was used to develop the coding structure for the three dimensions of engagement. Codes were used to categorise and find patterns and overlapping themes in the data [41,42]. Since this was an exploratory project, the research was limited to the factors related to students and technology. Exploring other factors will require conducting more extensive research on the Concordia student population and other institutions in a subsequent larger-scale research project.

The focus group discussions opened with an article published in The Atlantic magazine: Is Google Making Us Stupid? [43]. As Nicolas Carr himself notes:

I can feel it too. Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone or something has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, and reprogramming the memory. My mind isn’t going—so far as I can tell—but it’s changing. I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I’d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.

Carr’s article made us question how Millennials and Gen Z approach learning and reading. After this introduction, the remaining discussion explored engagement’s three dimensions. The questions on cognitive engagement were as follows: in general, what motivates students? Are students invested in their studies? What sacrifice, if any, are students willing to make to improve their grades? Do students have a plan? The questions on behavioural engagement were as follows: what do you think is affecting students’ performance in general? What is affecting their ability to meet deadlines? The questions regarding the final dimension, emotional engagement, were as follows: social media and friendship in the classroom—are students finding satisfaction at school? Are students proud to be at university? Do you think that students are stressed in general? Tense or depressed? Do they suffer from anxiety or nervousness? How do you think students cope? How satisfied are students with their professors? Can you name some qualities that your classmates dislike in their professors? What methods or tools—technology—did the professor use? Next were questions on friendship—its definition and how many friends one can have. Lastly, we introduced a question on the utility of social media and the physicality of taking a break versus taking a break on the computer by switching to social media.

5. Results and Analysis

5.1. Technology and Student Engagement

One clear thing from the interviews is that students believe they cannot live without technology. One interviewee, for instance, mentioned that he was “going crazy” for a while when his cell phone was being repaired; however, he acknowledged accepting it and expressed that he “felt liberated”. Many students report leaving their cell phones on at night and close by while they sleep; that is, continuous accessibility, music, and alarms. Another interviewee indicated that technology had such a powerful effect on her that she could only cope by being in a place completely devoid of technology. Without this break from devices, situations would arise whereby she would be on her laptop with multiple screens open—her assignment, her Facebook page, her email, etc. These responses suggest that technology and social media have, as noted, quite literally, an addictive dimension, as the student above acknowledged.

Many students are usually multitasking, meaning they pay continuous partial attention, leaving little time for reflection and thoughtful decisions, which are important for effective reading, writing, and critical thinking. Essentially, the Internet offers learners the most dopamine release per effort, making it harder to concentrate on lectures as the information that is presented is more tedious to digest. These devices always feed the users’ curiosity, hindering their thinking and their ability to reach conclusions on their own.

Furthermore, behavioural engagement demands active participation in activities that lead to positive academic and learning outcomes. In class, students are supposed to pay attention to lectures and engage with the professor. This ability to handle face-to-face and public communication appears to be affected by digital access.

I find it difficult to socialise with others outside of the computer. You can carefully think about what to say on (sic) computer so fear of ridicule or awkwardness is reduced. The first few times felt like a productive social interaction, but after a while, I felt more and more detached from reality, and it felt awkward to meet them face to face because I didn’t know how to act in front of people. I believe that the increasing use of technological devices is changing the way we communicate. […] The people who use technology the most tend to have difficulty going through a social gathering without checking their social media and games. They have become so addictive that they have changed the way we interact. Ex 1

While interacting with others in face-to-face meetings, I will often have other conversations while I am physically in the presence of another. I will be simultaneously in two conversations at once. I think we have become too dependent on these devices, yet I cannot find a way to stop. Ex 2

It is clear from these excerpts that technology affects behavioural engagement; however, the question remains—if it is, in fact, an addiction, what purpose does it fulfil? Is it a fix for boredom or perhaps being overwhelmed? If some students do not enjoy challenges—e.g., cognitive engagement—they may want to escape the moment.

Students also commented in class in response to viewing a video prepared by Michael Wesch (2007) and his anthropology students at Kansas State University, “A Vision of Students Today”, which again raises the issue of the addictive nature of technological devices.

Personally, I cannot stand to go an hour without checking my email… I cannot get myself to turn away from that Internet Explorer icon. What’s more, my iPod is my Bible… it contains everything I need—Internet, agenda, music, news apps […]

Although some nights I get lost in the Internet instead of my homework, I make a conscious effort not to check my Facebook and sit at a table with no computer or phone and work. The fact that I don’t fully trust myself next to a computer to engage in work shows me how overwhelming technology is [….]

I am dependent on technology…. I sleep with my cell phone turned on, and when I wake up, it is the first thing I check.

Facebook, Google, Twitter they are all very addicting and make me lose focus on what I am supposed to do.

Personally, I go on Facebook about every day, and I spend about 30–45 min on Facebook a day [……], but I go to play games. We insist that we make time for our technology, social networking, and music, and we end up stretching ourselves too thin.

One focus group revealed a longing to return to old paper books with the feel of turning a page vs. flipping a page on a Kindle reader, but that the nonstop promotion of tablets/e-readers/laptops, etc., was slowly but surely phasing out the former in favour of the latter. Moreover, many students mentioned that today’s toddlers seem to learn to use technology before learning to read and write in paper format. Thus, they expressed a desire to return to the old ways of reading and writing but were defenceless against the constant bombardment of new technological devices. Concerning digital learning/technology,

There is more individualisation of the content; if it does not apply to the student specifically, there is a lack of interest (team member).

Although most of these students appear to be aware of technology’s ability to cause major distractions and, in fact, label technology as problematic, they continue to use it actively. There is a strong dependence on technology, which interferes with some of the students’ mental and physical well-being. It has become quite clear that exam time is stressful for most of our students; it is a time when concentration is crucial for success—it is also when easy access to the Internet may diminish their capacity to focus.

I noticed that before I had my phone and other musical devices, I would need complete silence in order to study/work. Now that I have instant access to music or shows, I need to be able to have something of that sort to be playing, otherwise, I cannot concentrate. Even with that said, though, having access to people, texting, and the Internet, I still get easily distracted. I often feel the need to check my phone or email, and if I don’t, I get anxious. My phone needs to be with me 24/7; otherwise, I feel like I am missing something important. Ex 1

[…] I just switched from a crappy [phone] to a [smart phone]. My level of distractibility has increased, and concentration has decreased. Ex 4

[…] the cell phone has modified the way I behave. I tend to be more distracted by trivialities. Ex5

The overall picture that these students painted about technology is two-sided. On one side, technology can positively influence their lives by facilitating access to information and the feeling of connectedness it provides. On the other side, technology’s omnipresence has led these students to feel pressured to be more productive, more efficient, and more connected with others. This mounting pressure produces time constraints, which is a phenomenon reported by Hartmut Rosa [44] and Byung Chul-Han [45], limiting participation in other activities that are deemed important to them. These students also indicate that technology enables fickle and superficial relationships to develop, even when little interest is placed in these relationships. In the next section, using the comments of students who failed or did poorly on an exam, we consider the three dimensions that may give us a more complete picture of disengagement.

5.2. Exploring the Relationship Between the Three Dimensions

Out of twenty-seven students who performed poorly in their exams, only seven commented on technology’s influence on their studies, making it more difficult to find common patterns. Two of these seven students revealed that technology negatively impacted their ability to concentrate on their studies. Conversely, two other students who stated that they place limitations on using technology while doing schoolwork said they were more efficient and productive due to technology. The absence of a connection between technology and the other students’ studies implies two possibilities. For one, perhaps these students are unaware of technology’s influence on their studies even though they know its influence on many other aspects of their lives. Another possibility is that this connection between their studies, technology, and the question was not strong enough to have presented itself without further probing. The following sections analyse our data using the three dimensions. Again, it is fair to infer that the distracting feature of certain technological devices can partially explain students’ cognitive and behavioural engagement levels. Still, it may not be the complete picture. We suspect that a bigger impact originates from the emotional dimension of engagement.

Responses from some students who performed poorly on exams indicate low cognitive and behavioural engagement. Their behaviours interfered with their performance, especially their lack of time management between working and other courses. Other students listed several problems, such as how the material was taught; as Moore et al. [24] specify, there seemed to be an expectation of individualised and specific instruction. The following comment belongs to a student who performed poorly on a midterm; the remarks belong to the cognitive dimension:

Do not waste time and teach what we will not be tested on. Specify that the textbook is what is on the exam, not what is said in class. Class lectures are completely irrelevant. Do not make it a waste of time to come to class.

To our knowledge, this is the first time a position has been stated clearly, but as teachers, we are often asked “Will it be on the exam?” To be cognitively engaged means welcoming challenges, not their elimination. This kind of attitude, we suggest, is provoked by a lack of emotional engagement; if the main reason to be at university is to obtain a piece of paper needed to get a job, then no time should be wasted on general knowledge! Moreover, when discussing cognitive and behavioural engagement, we should pay attention to the number of students who leave after the first class when they find out the amount or the type of work they must do. Lastly, some stated they had difficulties with the reading material, revealing that the level of persistence in studying was low, and they did not have a successful strategy for studying, which again belongs to the cognitive area. Specific observations are extremely useful for appreciating behavioural engagement; therefore, the following paragraph is a very small sample of library observations carried out in the summer of 2013.

The most relevant behaviours are where the subject sits and the behaviours carried out. For example, those sitting in the library’s Silent (Blue) Study Zone have probably strategically picked this area over other study areas like the Orange Zone or outside the library. The students in the Blue zone still answered incoming calls, watched a video, and moved about (either moving papers or briefly leaving). They easily distracted themselves even though they had chosen the Blue Zone, supposedly conducive to working in a “non-distracting” quiet space. Based on observations of student behaviours during short 30 min periods, it was clear that not much work was being accomplished between the many disruptions, whether in answering text messages, fidgeting, or looking at things on a computer that were unrelated to schoolwork. Procrastination is a fair example of behavioural engagement:

I feel like for me it’s a lot of time management stuff […] like quite a few responsibilities around my home, but I should be able to like to do that cooking and stuff and my schoolwork, but it’s kind of like the procrastination, maybe of not starting it, or like listening to a podcast instead of starting it, and then being just an hour behind and then not having the time after that, and it’s like the end of the day [feeling ] exhausted but choosing to meet that deadline means more exhausted the next day after that start so it’s time management as well. G.

To some students, school is seen as their duty, and procrastination is a mild form of rebellion. Yu want to use your time for what you want to do (team member).

Some of the most interesting responses come from a question on engagement about the level of importance placed on different aspects related to succeeding in university: what level of importance do you place on (1) doing well on an assignment, (2) passing a course, and (3) graduating? Of these three questions, the third one is significant to us. A few state that passing a course is less important than graduating and getting a job.

Because graduating is my top priority, grades on individual assignments, and even in particular classes, aren’t as important… as long as I don’t jeopardise my ability to graduate (EQ-9)

Graduating would be at the top [of my list] given that getting my degree would be my greatest accomplishment in life; it is truly the ultimate reward for me (EQ-10)

We have already suggested that emotion plays a significant role in these students’ lives. Our data indicate that forms of evaluation often create stress and anxiety. Still, the mental health of many students is also jeopardised by their personal lives and by the pressure to validate themselves through succeeding in university. Based on these open-ended questions, succeeding in university has many definitions depending on the student. For some, it is graduating; for others, it is achieving A grades in their courses. Only one student commented about maintaining a high GPA in order to attend graduate school. Many students cannot envision a future beyond finishing a course and graduating. No student mentioned that they wanted to pursue a specific job, research area, or even a specific path for the future. How do you pursue a goal when you have no concrete idea of what that goal means?

“First, I needed to prove to myself that I was capable of higher education and second, everyone demands at least a Bachelor’s degree nowadays. Therefore, in order to get a job I had to attend University.”

Another important point regarding emotional engagement is the satisfaction of being at university, the answer is informative:

A: I don’t think satisfaction is the right word, but I am happy to be doing it, and I am proud of my academic accomplishments […] I’ve been thinking since I first read the question on what would be a better word than satisfaction and I haven’t I haven’t come to a solid conclusion yet. But I am certainly proud to be at university. […] I’d say those that have actual intrinsic motivations tend to be more uh tend to be more satisfied with uh with their time at school and with their time learning uh than those without, and I’d say it’s a pretty one-to-one correlation.

When asked about their reactions and actions after receiving a poor grade, similar responses were collected to those of the other group of students who performed poorly on a midterm. Again, demonstrating low cognitive engagement, both groups of students begin by assigning the professor the responsibility; they first try to recalculate their grade or reverify their notes, and only after this initial process do the students indicate that they will try to improve their study habits for the next assignment or exam. As previously noted, the professor depends on “giving” good grades, primarily As and Bs, on assignments. Although assignments and exams usually result from independent work, students who received poor grades seemed to lack the ability to work independently and truly recognise their work’s individuality. Other students lose focus on important tasks by prioritising other responsibilities, resulting in poor time management skills.

Few of us today would argue that most of our students do not consider university education as an end in itself. Most of our students stated that they were in university to get a good or a better job in the future, and all were able to identify effective study strategies. Here, the cognitive dimension is visible, but what if these students are not sure they will get a job? This uncertainty brings us back to the emotional area, which we suggest is the fuel feeding behaviour and cognition. We contend that most students will not expend the necessary effort if the future appears too gloomy. Most because some of our students are indeed taking higher education as an end it itself. Thus, these students do not appear to lack the knowledge to succeed in university, but many lack the discipline or the necessary will to prioritise successful time management.

In addition, some students also state that they are not motivated, that their interest is not as high as it could be, and, as we saw in a previous section, technology distracts them. We suspect that this is linked to the lack of job prospects, creating emotional disengagement where the cost is letting go of what entertains them. Why should they make sacrifices when the main purpose of university study is to get a job, but they will end up in the reserve army of labour? Given university expectations, many of our students struggle constantly. A few students briefly discussed how high school and CEGEP did not adequately prepare them for university.

High school doesn’t prepare you for university in terms of a career…there is no direction when you go to university, so it is difficult to be motivated. (FG 2)

Based on our failing students’ responses, a few had no clue about what to do to succeed in a course; this is particularly worrisome for those students who may feel hopeless regarding their academic careers. In addition, other students mentioned that they were stressed and overwhelmed by the amount of coursework, the need to work, and personal issues. These are the emotional issues that affect behaviour.

A student can appear to be perfect, and they can have bad relationships, family issues, mental health issues, a bad job, too much work, and too many responsibilities. (FG 3)

Overall, these students believe that they are behaviourally engaged; yet, many times, we hear “But I worked so hard”, yet it seems that their emotional or cognitive engagement is interfering with their ability to succeed in their coursework fully. Although we give the emotional dimension a leading role and analyse the three dimensions individually, they are definitively interdependent. Consequently, if emotional engagement interferes with a student’s schoolwork, the other two dimensions of engagement will probably be negatively influenced, individually or together. The dominance of one dimension of engagement largely depends on the individual student and the socio-economic context. Some social contexts are more likely to influence a different dimension of engagement.

Since behavioural and cognitive engagement entails positive conduct, such as following the university’s rules, going beyond requirements, and increasing one’s efforts in the face of failure, we must once again turn toward the future—job availability. As we have noted, Fredricks et al. [10] included motivation and attitude, which we posit could be described as a mindset. How do we explain this mindset? Maybe underneath this so-called disengagement, there may be disguised anger, an emotion that we suspect is triggered by a deep sense of injustice, especially with the rampant misrepresentation at all levels of organisations, institutions, and government. As the editorialist in the Concordian [46] noted at the time, students are right when they say “Clean up the top, and then we will not mind paying”). It is also possible that this mindset could lead to the depressive state mentioned by a few of our respondents, and this is worth further investigation.

5.3. Health: Physical and Emotional

The focus groups allowed students to exchange ideas and reactions to the engagement question. One of our original concerns was the effect on student health. A more senior faculty member in our department had asked us whether we found that students were, in his terms, “more fragile”—it was clear that even the more intellectually distanced academics were recognising differences. Many faculty members find that there are increasing numbers of student medical notes for “severe anxiety”, along with students hospitalised for “irritable bowel syndrome” concomitant with stress and several other health issues more often seen in middle-aged people. Other issues of medicalisation, depression, suicide, and abandonment or “dropping out” are increasing among the young. For example, a student completely fell apart in our office, explaining that she had been on ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) medications since she was eight years old. Still, the medication was no longer working for her. As a result, she was given a disastrously increased dosage. Some students are in a very different place!

In the initial phase of this research, we wanted to test some questions, so we used the electronic device Clicker to conduct a survey. Anxiety appeared to be a primary health issue; in fact, we have noticed a clear increase among students in our classes expressing the experience of anxiety sufficient to cause dysfunction. In the qualitative analysis, high anxiety intersects with high productivity, and it also intersects with concentration effects; thus, more is achieved, but it is harder to complete the work given the level of anxiety. Nevertheless, most students do not see their electronic devices as a source of stress.

We consulted with the Access Centre for Students with Disabilities at Concordia. Charles Altman reports that mental health disorders and ADHD disability reports grew in tandem until the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, with the pandemic and after it, mental health issues rose more slowly and then flattened (2022–2023). Meanwhile, ADHD diagnoses rose rapidly during and after the pandemic, almost doubling mental health issues. Altman suggests that given the high prevalence of anxiety disorders among students with mental health conditions and the comorbidity of anxiety with ADHD, the surge in ADHD probably reflects a surge in anxiety disorders. This ties in with Haidt’s [25] analysis in The Anxious Generation; the ubiquitous presence of the cell phone and the loss of person-to-person interactions, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as limited childhood “free play”, have supported a cognitively fragile generation.

Despite the salience of depression today, given the number of people using antidepressant medications, in the clicker survey, approximately 50% of students reported no depression, and the rest reported one or more incidences of depression. Small and Vorgan [34] (p. 19) and Consiglio et al. [47] attribute some of these psychological disturbances to “techno-brain burnout”, producing individuals who are “spaced out”, fatigued, irritable, and distracted. In the short term, stress engages the adrenal gland in producing cortisol, aiding energy and memory. Still, after working continuously on the Internet for several hours, the strain impairs cognition and can lead to depression [48].

From the focus groups, there was a sense that while technology was influential in student engagement, other factors weighed just as—if not more—heavily than those mentioned above. Parental pressure seemed to be a big factor; parents push their children to go to university because this is expected today and is probably perceived as a chance for class mobility. Parents also push their children to achieve a certain calibre of marks. As one student said, “All the expectations to be “better than the best” is (sic) true”; therefore, the process of learning—personal growth and development as a scholar—is minimised at the expense of the letter grade a student must achieve [49].

Culturally there is an expectation to go to university whether you want to or not. (FG 2)

5.4. Jobs

The NSSE [5] is not the only survey Concordia University has been involved with over the years. Examples of other surveys that Concordia has participated in include the Canadian Graduate and Professional Student Survey (GPSS) and the Canadian Undergraduate Survey Consortium (CUSC). In 2006, a cycle of the CUSC, known as the Graduating Students Survey, revealed that only 6 out of 10 graduating students at Concordia had decided on a specific occupation or a career field. Social Science was the discipline with the lowest percentage of students who had decided on a career (48% compared with 89% for Education). Social Science also had the lowest percentage of graduating students with a current CV (74% compared with 89% for Business). Only 17% of graduating students in Social Science believe that many jobs are available, and 31% believe that there are few jobs [50]. Consequently, Concordia students in Social Science seem to have significant difficulties preparing for a future career in their study area, especially in comparison with other disciplines.

The perceptions of Social Science students from Concordia are not unrealistic when examining the unemployment rates of graduates in Québec. In 2006, the unemployment rate in Québec for individuals who had completed a certificate or diploma at university was 9.9% for those aged 15–24 and 5.4% for those aged 24–34. Academia is no longer an almost habitual career plan for a job, but it is still being pushed on our young people.

People make short-term plans because of the unpredictable nature of the job market and jobs. (FG 1)

Teaching positions are not easily available, especially given the number of graduate degrees handed out. An undergraduate degree no longer guarantees any job, especially if no specific skills are involved. Over-qualification after graduation may also contribute to the low expectations of Social Science students at Concordia. For example, one Canadian study (from 2011) found that the probability of being overqualified among workers aged 25–34 with a university degree in social sciences, behavioural sciences, and law was significantly higher than among those with a degree in education. Specifically, individuals with a university degree in social and behavioural sciences and law had a 0.235 probability of being overqualified in occupations usually requiring a high school education or less and a 0.525 probability of being overqualified in occupations requiring a college education or less [51] Another challenge beyond the uncertainty in future jobs is that students are increasingly employed during their studies. Specifically, the employment rate for full-time students in Québec has substantially changed over the past 20 years. In 1991, the employment rate for full-time students was 31.8% for 15–19-year-olds and 40.6% for 20–24-year-olds, while corresponding rates in 2011 were 36% and 54.3%, respectively [52].

6. Final Reflection

These last paragraphs conclude ten years of observations in and outside of our classrooms. Tremblay’s participation in the Education International Seventh World Congress in 2015 convinced us that this research was important enough to pursue, despite the lack of interest from key players in our professional association [53]. As teachers, this project has been one of our most challenging endeavours. We began this research with a single variable—technology—without a proper working concept of engagement. Having reached the moment when we must conclude, we realise the long road we have travelled, how many different trails we have discovered, and how much is left to be achieved; hence, this last section is titled Final Reflection, not Conclusion.

As a multi-dimensional concept, engagement allowed us to explore and render a more elaborate picture of our student population and their so-called disengagement. At the outset of this project, we were convinced that the main variable leading to student disengagement was technology, such as cell phones and tablets. Today, we claim that technology plays a role, but this variable must be analysed in conjunction with others. This project has given us reason to suggest that something else is causing our students to be somewhat disconnected. The situation could be more about what and how we teach, the state of university education, the socio-economic and cultural context, and the continuing effects this context has on our student population. At this point, we suggest that emotional engagement influences behavioural and cognitive engagement.

If emotional engagement addresses the affective rejoinders in the classroom, emotions such as boredom and anxiety are the ones that come to mind. Why are students anxious? Haidt [25] suggests that current students in university have experienced foundational social harm. Many are being overwhelmed by technology and have become the anxious generation. Further, why are they bored? The rapid and continuous stimulation of online connections often creates a feeling of boredom when it ceases. The brain is hard-wired to respond to novelty, and the Internet answers this desire. Thus, we found partial answers in technology and job prospects. This dimension is also conceptualised as identification. Identification comprises the sense of feeling important to the institution, i.e., belonging. Despite the democratisation of education, the university is still suited to the elite or the middle class in many ways. As Bourdieu [13] argues, cultural (general knowledge) and social capital (social and economic class) determine how comfortable someone feels at university. Lastly, emotional engagement includes a cost/return aspect; therefore, if, as NSSE states, only 17% of graduating students from Social Science believe that many jobs are available, then we have even more reason to place the emotional dimension first!

It is obvious that our student population has steadily changed in the last fifteen years, but how? And maybe we, the teachers, have become detached from their reality. We must prepare our students to live and work in a highly competitive world. Social Science departments are not professional departments; these are pure academic spheres. Yes, we prepare our students for careers, but it is equally important to form citizens capable of working and being politically active in their environment. We agree, in part, with Jonah Dunch’s opinion piece It’s Time for Canadian Universities to Go Gradeless [54]. “If we take the core values of a thriving university to be the encouragement of academic exploration, an appreciation of the intellectual and ethical value of learning, and care for student well-being, then we should endorse pass/fail grading as a norm for Canadian universities” [54]. Concordia prides itself on being a leader in applied education—our old slogan was “Real Education for the Real World”. It is therefore time for us to review how we approach teaching, because, as a graduating student told me “…, rather than forcing students to memorise pages of ideas that serve little use today, teachers must encourage us to interact with the material, comparing new ideas with old, and applying them to the real world around us”.

In our classes, increasing numbers of students require support to read and write at the university level. Many are accepted into introductory classes with a lack of basic skills. We do not have the resources to deal with this. Some students are struggling with mental and emotional problems or are riddled with anxiety. We need to create a space for our students to learn. Tremblay [8] posits that grades stand in the way of learning. Jonah Dunch said it publicly, and as another colleague said, “… the learning atmosphere is crucial. Students must feel they have the permission to make mistakes. Based on many educational studies, the learning environment the teacher creates is the biggest contributing factor to student success”. Right now, students’ anxiety, paired with some teachers’ exhaustion, is not conducive to learning. In line with Jonah Dunch’s idea to go gradeless, certainly in the early years of university, it would enable students to more freely enter a different world, one that, according to an educator, is the most important: “quality education offers opportunities for students to explore and discover. Although direct instruction is necessary, its goal is to permit students to learn independently by providing them with the skills and strategies necessary to do so”. The educational experience involves more than just absorbing information—as a student told me, I am not a container for information. I need to be challenged.

6.1. The Job Connection

The expectations of many students are increasingly disconnected from the reality of their lives, which could affect their mindset and attitude vis-à-vis their studies. In general, for Boomers, getting a job was easier and was more about independence than about consumption. Many of us worked to leave home—to “do our own thing”, as the 1960s slogan stated, which was experienced by all socio-economic classes. Today, as Hess highlights, few entry-level jobs will give young people the disposable income that so many had in the late 1960s and 1970s. As we discovered from Statistic Canada [55], this cohort of students is generally not needed in today’s downsized economy. However, the government and the universities have a vested interest in keeping more and more students at university since they may be “dangerous” on the streets. And what do we make of the fact that in order to keep our students in university, some employers have increased the criteria of employability?. The CUSC report is a survey, published in 2023, which offers the opportunity to review the connection between employment and education. The average student in high school today has few job options upon graduation; this results in higher education being continually pushed as the way to a good job [4]. However, today, many young people have moved away from social science and chosen disciplines for future employment purposes [56]. For many, however, few options are available to reach even the lifestyle level of their parents, much less the image of success that is being communicated to them through consumer marketing. Aware of the serious economic and environmental issues around them, our students are wondering where they will find their place in the world.

Moreover, many students are wondering if an undergraduate degree will suffice. Indeed, the tendency is to produce more graduate programme and degrees, and encourage undergraduate students to continue on to graduate studies, which creates another level of anxiety. Indeed, a GPA of 3:00 and strong letters of reference used to be sufficient, but with inflation and increased competition, it is not unusual that students in very good standing are refused graduate programmes. Despite this academic inflation, the reverse situation is also a complication, such as hiding credentials to get a job! Students may not be hired for interesting jobs because they are overqualified [51].

An increasing focus on the “self” and the “freedom” to be whatever you want has left young people with increasing anomie, in Durkheim’s terms, a state of despair brought on by gaps in social norms and individual expectations of life. Thus, faced with this overwhelming freedom of possibilities, the impossibility of choice, and the pressures to attain independence, the results for many are superficial “mediated” relationships, isolation, and loneliness [21] (p. 109). The inability to meet their own and other’s expectations in this new economic climate has emotionally disastrous results. The emotional frustration and anger of “no future” were revealed in 2012 by students engaging in protest activities disrupting university classes and gatherings on the street, delaying traffic. In Montréal, the 2024 university boycott also expressed these concerns for the future, where, again, we suggest that these emotional factors influence students’ engagement.

Despite some of our leaders publicly mocking the student protestors in April 2012, tuition costs are rising, and the job market looks grim. In 2012, the unemployment rate for Canadians aged 15 to 29 was 13%; having an undergraduate degree does not make a job candidate stand out like it once did. After graduation, often weighed down by student debt, many will have to string together short-term contracts with unpaid internships—and even those can be hard to get. Recent PhDs at Concordia cannot find permanent positions. One student said, “I need to get into this or that program because the world is scary, and I see people out of work”. In the student boycott of winter 2024, students’ emotional frustration and anger could be felt when students disrupted university gatherings, stating “We have no future, and you want us to pay more for it?” They are particularly aware of and question the weight and economic largesse at the administrative level of the university. Many students are also acutely aware of the competition awaiting them after graduation.

We could explain our students’ need for higher education as a social-climbing process [1] (p. 21) to get a job, but how did this become the only way to get a job? How did higher education become linked to getting a job? We could briefly state the disappearance of manufacturing and again mention social status. Therefore, we have a relationship between an institutional field and subjectivities, influenced by our social environment and its rules, regulations, expectations, rewards, and sanctions [1] (p. 26). This environment is overflowing, at times, with contradictory information and conflicting values, and represents for many of our students an increasingly fearful world. Contrary to popular opinion expressed during the Maple Spring, young people were not spoiled; they were abandoned in favour of social and economic status. To discuss this any further is beyond the scope of this paper, but we rank this contention as one of our more important insights that need to be examined.

Too many adults today refuse to acknowledge the change in the socio-economic context. Our students’ cohort may be part of the first generation of the modern world unable to reach their parents’ standard of living and health. The greater demands and competition experienced by the young in this age of fear where everything is a risk has become an environment almost as problematic for young people as the early industrial period was for the child. Often, administrators and professors refuse to acknowledge that the social context has changed and that what awaits our students is, at times, far from encouraging. As academics, we are concerned about students and the purpose of the university for our society. We must begin to determine what kind of society is desired. Certainly, the digital revolution and the resultant devices have restructured many aspects of our social world, and, as with all social change, there is no “going back”. We are faced with blending the new social media attributes with the academic to maintain the connection with our students. Our students are often from different cultures and subcultures; they view the world differently, as a digital, mediated world. Students have a clear emotional attachment to their devices, and as such, these devices are essential to their lives. With the changes being produced in the brain, the changes in sociability—relationships and intimacy—associated with these changes, and the changed economic and global context, academia must examine its role. Ultimately, we must still determine what kinds of knowledge are required, how this knowledge should be produced for students, and what context would allow us to assist students in their encounter with the future. As social scientists, we prepare our students to live and work as critical thinkers in a highly competitive world. Social Science departments are not professional departments; these are pure academic spheres. Yes, we prepare our students for careers, but it is equally important to form citizens capable of working and being politically active in their environment. As contracted faculty but full-time teachers, we are concerned about education, which should be a concern for all.

It would be unfair to our readers to end this paper without acknowledging the fact that the present authors did have their own distractions, but these were different—sitting in class daydreaming is one coming to mind; relationship issues; television; telephoning instead of homework; tiredness after staying up way too late, and so on. Meanwhile, it is also unfair to not mention some of the benefits of technology. First, computers and word processing are making our lives as students and teachers much easier. Access to the Internet when conducting research is probably the most beneficial tool for students and for teachers. Access to ejournals from around the world is invaluable when carrying out research. Some students and teachers find PowerPoint essential to their lectures. Although some of our colleagues have a clear preference for face-to-face interaction, Zoom meetings are beneficial when it is impossible to meet in person. The magic of the Internet cannot be denied. Every change in our lives comes with side effects—technology is no different.

6.2. The Limits and Strengths of This Study

The primary limitation of this study resulted from an obstacle encountered within our institution at the onset of this project in 2013. Some in the administration considered that the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) addressed our concerns, and thus our project was redundant. The NSSE, directed by Indiana University, surveys students from 4-year universities to determine how students spend their time and what they gain from university. University administrators use the results to plan the learning activities for the institution (https://nsse.indiana.edu/nsse/, accessed on 28 May 2014). This NSSE survey illuminates the ways in which students allocate time vis-a-vis academic work and extracurricular activities, as well as the extent to which universities effectively provide academic and supportive resources such as more time to write essays, psychological/emotional help, as well as permission to write exams alone under supervision. On one hand, the NSSE is important in understanding the university’s overall successful functioning, such as student services that enhance academic experiences, but the survey is more about the experiences, habits, and perceptions of students at their university rather than their level of engagement with their courses. There are questions that address engagement, but these data are limited because they are only descriptive and do not allow for an in-depth analysis, especially when little is known about the group of students who have answered, beyond the responses to general demographic questions [57]. Only more qualitative questions with clearer explanations linked to responses could fulfil this need. Moreover, the NSSE does not address the specifics of why students at one university may be having more difficulties in being engaged compared with another university. More significantly, for us, the NSSE does not define engagement. Indeed, the NSSE definition is very broad and includes other functions of an institution such as extra-curricular activities, e.g., volunteer work, sports, etc. [57]. The definition used in this exploratory research is more specific because the focus of the present research is based on the individual student, their thought processes, and their relationship to their studies. Most studies on engagement take a quantitative approach very similar to the NSSE, but often, the questionnaires used are more limited in their questions. Past research on student engagement has tended to focus on different definitions of engagement [51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58] or has focused on only one of the dimensions of engagement [59], and has rarely used a qualitative approach [58]. Therefore, the present endeavour aims to fill these lacunas.

Given the situation, at that moment we were left with limited funds and had to abandon the idea of widening the project scope. We had intended to compare different disciplines and include at least one other institution. While this constraint on our study cohort limits the general applicability of our conclusions, we recognise the work as exploratory research, creating a foundation for future research and providing our readers with a clear definition of engagement.