The University Policy Engagement Network (UPEN) recently announced that it had been successful in a UKRI bid to develop and expand UK policy to research infrastructure, facilitating connections and engagement between public and civil servants on one hand, and research organisations on the other.
This call is a recent manifestation of a perennial and important interest in evidence-informed policymaking, and policy and research engagement. Policy engagement is also part of an increased focus on engagement with and impact of research, driven by the Research Excellence Framework.
University-based researchers and policymakers respond to different incentives in ways that are not always conducive to engagement. Interviewees described a wide range of influences on policy, including many types of research, much of which is produced outside the university sector. For some types of research, such as rapid research, researchers at higher education institutions were seen as being at a disadvantage. To address these considerations, our interviewees suggested that research co-creation – involving policymakers earlier in the process to develop research ideas and design projects – could promote engagement with policy.
Engagement from the start
In a typical research process, university-based researchers develop, conduct, and publish their research with a high degree of independence from the stakeholders of their research. Once the research is completed, researchers disseminate their findings, hoping to reach external stakeholders, including policymakers. In contrast, co-created research brings research stakeholders into the research process at the beginning and maintains stakeholder influence and co-creation throughout.
When asked how researchers can increase engagement with policy, one participant said: :
Co-designing projects with people involved in policy from the outset rather than, you know, what I often see, which is ‘we’ve done this stuff and now, who can we send it to?’ So, getting people involved from the outset and the running of it through advice.
Because policy priorities shift and because research often takes a long time to complete, co-creation is not a perfect solution for policy research engagement. But co-creation may increase the likelihood that research findings are relevant to and usable for the specific needs of policymakers. Another benefit of co-creation is that, by taking part in the research process, policymakers are more likely to feel invested in the research and inclined to use its findings.
Co-creation of research with policymakers requires access to and some form of relationship with relevant policymakers. While some researchers have easier access to policymakers than others, there are structures in place to facilitate the networking required to build relevant relationships, including through academic fellowship with the UK Parliament. Researchers can sometimes connect more easily to ministers and policymakers via intermediary organisations such as mission groups, representative bodies, think tanks, and professional organisations.
Designing successful co-creation
In a policy-research co-creation model, one of the questions that is worth asking is what is co-created: is research co-created, policy co-created, or both? For example, one participant in our study viewed researcher engagement with policymakers as policy-co-creation, rather than as research co-creation. Researchers can ask themselves: “What policy am I well-positioned to co-create based on my research?” as well as “How can my research benefit from co-creation with its stakeholders?”
Our article highlights that one of the more frequent pathways for researchers based at universities to engage with policy is through conducting commissioned research. Commissioned research is often aligned with policy needs and facilitates co-creation. Yet independence, rigour, and criticality – markers of quality research – still need to be ensured even as part of co-created and commissioned research.
Commissioned research was not the only type of research discussed by our participants that led to policy engagement. Interviewees provided examples of researchers with an established and rigorous body of work that answered policy-relevant questions which were successful in shaping policy. Sometimes, a body of research developed over time and over multiple studies is better suited for policy engagement. Sometimes this takes the form of a systematic review designed to bring a large body of research literature to bear on a current policy problem.
This raises an important consideration for mechanisms that incentivise engagement: how does incentivising engagement affect the multiple priorities that researchers based at higher education institutions need to meet? The danger here is that, as more policy engagement is incentivised, researchers at higher education institutions might prioritise forms and qualities of research which lend themselves to engagement over those which higher education is uniquely placed to offer.
As current efforts to expand UK-wide policy to research infrastructure develop, it is important to consider the multiple complexities associated with policy research engagement. In our view, for policy and research engagement to be meaningful, policy to research infrastructure needs to support high quality research, targeted engagement, and have a clear sense of what each of these means in practice.
New license agreement provides all students and faculty with free access to Top Hat, reinforcing UGA’s strategic focus on affordability, student success, and innovation in teaching.
TORONTO – June 17, 2025 – Top Hat, the leader in student engagement solutions for higher education, today announced that the University of Georgia has entered into a new enterprise agreement that will provide campus-wide access to the Top Hat platform at no cost to students or faculty. This initiative supports UGA’s continued efforts to promote high-impact teaching practices, student affordability, and innovation in the classroom.
Top Hat’s interactive teaching platform as well as content authoring and customization tools will be available to UGA faculty to enhance in-person, online, and hybrid courses across disciplines. With this agreement, UGA joins a growing number of leading institutions investing in Top Hat to empower instructors to improve learning outcomes and student success at scale.
“We are proud to support the University of Georgia in its efforts to deliver proven, student-centered teaching practices,” said Maggie Leen, CEO of Top Hat. “This partnership ensures every student and educator at UGA has access to the tools they need to drive learning and achievement, while reinforcing the university’s focus on affordability, innovation, and evidence-based instruction.”
This initiative reflects UGA’s commitment to both student affordability and instructional excellence. With Top Hat, faculty can adopt and customize low- or no-cost course materials—including OpenStax and OER—helping to reduce costs for students while delivering engaging, evidence-based instruction. The platform enables instructors to easily integrate active learning strategies, such as frequent low-stakes assessments and reflection prompts, which are proven to enhance student engagement and academic outcomes. Top Hat’s AI-powered assistant, Ace, streamlines course prep by generating high-quality questions directly from lecture content, and supports students with on-demand study help and unlimited practice opportunities—reinforcing learning both in and out of the classroom. Real-time data from polls, quizzes, and assignments also empowers educators to continuously monitor progress and improve instructional impact.
The University of Georgia is recognized nationally for excellence in teaching and learning, student completion, and affordability. The enterprise agreement with Top Hat is part of UGA’s broader commitment to building a world-class learning environment and increasing access to affordable, high impact teaching and learning resources.
About Top Hat
As the leader in student engagement solutions for higher education, Top Hat enables educators to employ proven student-centered teaching practices through interactive content and tools enhanced by AI, and activities in in-person, online and hybrid classroom environments. To accelerate student impact and return on investment, the company provides a range of change management services, including faculty training and instructional design support, integration and data management services, and digital content customization. Thousands of faculty at 900 leading North American colleges and universities use Top Hat to create meaningful, engaging and accessible learning experiences for students before, during, and after class.
Earlier this spring, I was one of hundreds of college, university and scholarly society leaders to sign “A Call for Constructive Engagement” published by the American Association of Colleges and Universities. The statement speaks out against “the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.” It calls for the freedom to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how and by whom, while engaging in constructive reform and openness to legitimate government oversight.
Deciding whether to make such a public statement merits careful consideration. This is because by making the statement, a higher education leader will likely not be reflecting the viewpoints of all of their institution’s constituents.
An email from an alum from the 1970s reminded me of this. The alum chastised me for signing the statement, for overreaching and speaking for some members of our university community such as him, and for banding together with other higher learning institutions that have become “liberal cesspools of propaganda and misinformation … [that] openly permit anti-Israeli protests led by anti-Semitic educators … [and] become another left-wing terrorist organization supporting the likes of Hamas.”
The alum asked me to remove my signature from the AAC&U statement on account of the concerns that he had raised. One higher education leader has so far done so, likely because of receiving input such as that provided by our alum.
I opted to reply to our alum, thereby putting to practice the constructive engagement preached by the AAC&U statement. My reply asked the alum how long it had been since he had last visited campus and whether he knew that, thanks to the philanthropic generosity of some fellow graduates, we renovated our campus’s Hillel House last summer.
I asked the alum whether he had heard of the Common Ground program Alfred instituted in 2018 through the philanthropic support of our trustees. It is a required course for all of our new undergraduate students and consists of small-group dialogue facilitated by a faculty or staff member with two key objectives: 1) to better appreciate the different backgrounds (including geographies, ethnicities and religions), aspirations and interests that our new students bring to Alfred (artists think differently than engineers, liberal arts students think differently than business students), and 2) to arrive at some shared values that our new students will commit to living by as citizens of the Alfred community—such as commitment to constructive dialogue.
By fostering constructive engagement, our Common Ground program likely helped prevent the strife that occurred on many other college campuses in the wake of the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel and the ensuing war in the Middle East. When members of campus communities have built meaningful relationships with one another, they are less likely to retreat to their ideological corners when a potential conflict arises. Instead, they talk as friends.
I closed my email by asking the alum whether he had any impactful mentors as a student.
To my pleasant surprise, the alum replied by recounting a particularly impactful faculty mentor in the field of astronomy who had given him many applied learning opportunities and inspired a lifelong interest in stargazing, which he continues to do to this day from his home. He also noted how well his college education had positioned him for the professional success that he has enjoyed.
We have since spoken by phone. While there are certain matters upon which we still disagree, we have found some common ground.
We agree that institutions of higher learning are potent engines for promoting the success of graduates as well as the prosperity of our nation and the health and well-being of our broader population. There are nearly 4,000 institutions of higher learning across our nation—spanning public and private and including community colleges, technical training institutions, arts schools, religious institutions and HBCUs. This constellation, in which anyone can find a place, provides powerful opportunities for professional and personal advancement, social mobility, entrepreneurial innovation, access to health care, national defense, social services and cultural offerings.
We agree that the core focus of institutions of higher learning should be on providing an education of enduring value through fostering knowledge and curiosity.
We also agree that universities, like individuals and nations, do not always uniformly arc toward wisdom. They can stumble and thus benefit from constructive reform. Our field of higher education can and should be better listeners to our public, more concerned about the cost of college and more focused on student success and less on prestige.
Notwithstanding the stumbles, however, institutions of higher learning, as noted by Israeli historian Yuval Hariri in his recent book Nexus, have some powerful self-correcting mechanisms such as peer review. Authoritarian regimes, by contrast, lack such self-correcting mechanisms when they suppress inquiry and criticism.
Consider Katalin Karikó, who emigrated from her native Hungary to the United States with $1,200 cash sewn into her daughter’s teddy bear to do research on mRNA. While at the University of Pennsylvania, her hypothesis regarding the potency of mRNA research was derided by most fellow researchers around the globe. She was denied a tenure-track position and demoted. Yet, the research that she kept pursuing was pivotal to the development of COVID vaccines and earned her a Nobel Prize in 2023.
And while our alum and I still disagree on whether my signature should be affixed to the AAC&U statement, we have ended up agreeing both on the value of constructive engagement and the criticality of promoting it as a central value in higher education.
Halfway through the semester, it’s not uncommon to notice a shift in your students’ energy levels (Baghurst and Kelley, 2013; Kumari et al., 2021). The initial enthusiasm for learning a foreign language may wane as other courses with demanding assignments compete for their attention. Some students prioritize subjects they perceive as more directly tied to their major or career, while others simply feel the weight of mid-semester exhaustion. In the spring, the long winter months can add to this fatigue, making it even harder to keep students engaged (Rohan and Sigmon, 2000).
This is the moment when a language instructor must pivot, shifting the classroom dynamic to reignite curiosity and motivation. Although instructors strive to incorporate activities that cater to the five preferred learning styles (Felder and Henriques, 1995)—visual (learning through images and spatial understanding), auditory (learning through listening and discussion), reading/writing (learning through text-based interaction), kinesthetic (learning through movement and hands-on activities), and multimodal (a combination of multiple styles)—it is beneficial to intersperse these well-structured, and, after a while, predictable classes with activities that break the mold. Introducing something unexpected and different from the established classroom dynamics can reenergize students, foster creativity, and enhance their enthusiasm for learning.
Music, in particular, has long been an ally of instructors teaching a second language (L2)—a language learned after one’s native tongue—especially since the field transitioned toward a more communicative approach. Rooted in interaction and real-world application, the communicative approach prioritizes meaningful engagement over rote memorization, helping students develop fluency in natural, immersive ways. Research has consistently highlighted the benefits of music in L2 acquisition, from improving pronunciation and listening skills to enhancing vocabulary retention and cultural understanding (Degrave, 2019; Kumar et al. 2022; Nuessel and Marshall, 2008; Vidal and Nordgren, 2024).
Building on this tradition, the activity we will share here not only incorporates music but also integrates artificial intelligence, adding a new layer of engagement and critical thinking. By using AI as a tool in the learning process, students not only familiarize themselves with its capabilities but also develop the ability to critically evaluate the content it generates. This approach encourages them to reflect on language, meaning, and interpretation while engaging in text analysis, creative writing, public speaking, and gamification—all within an interactive, culturally rich framework.
Activity Description: Musical Challenge with ChatGPT: “Sing and Discover”
Objective:
Students will improve their listening comprehension and written production in Spanish by analyzing and recreating song lyrics with the help of ChatGPT. While the instructions are presented here in English, the activity should be conducted in the target language—whether Spanish or another language being taught.
Instructions:
1. Listen and Decode
Divide the class into groups of 2-3 students.
Choose a song in Spanish (e.g., La Llorona by Chavela Vargas, Oye Cómo Va by Tito Puente, Vivir Mi Vida by Marc Anthony).
Provide each group with an incomplete version of the lyrics with missing words.
Students listen to the song and fill in the blanks.
2. Interpret and Discuss
Within their groups, students analyze the song’s meaning.
They discuss what they think the lyrics convey, including emotions, themes, and any cultural references they recognize.
Each group shares their interpretation with the class.
What do you think the song is trying to communicate?
Which emotions or feelings do the lyrics evoke for you?
Can you identify any cultural references in the song? How do they shape its meaning?
How does the music (melody, rhythm, etc.) influence your interpretation of the lyrics?
3. Compare with ChatGPT
After forming their own analysis, students ask ChatGPT:
What do you think the song is trying to communicate?
Which emotions or feelings do the lyrics evoke for you?
They compare ChatGPT’s interpretation with their own ideas and discuss similarities or differences.
4.Create Your Own Verse
Each group writes a new verse that matches the song’s style and rhythm.
They may ask ChatGPT for assistance: “Help us write a new verse for this song in the same style.”
5. Perform and Sing
Each group presents their new verse to the class.
If they feel comfortable, they can sing it using the original melody.
It is beneficial for the professor to have a karaoke (instrumental) version of the song available so that students’ lyrics can be heard clearly.
Displaying the new lyrics on a monitor or projector allows other students to follow along and sing together, enhancing the collective experience.
6. Election – The Grammy Goes To Students vote for different categories, including:
Best Adaptation
Best Reflection
Best Performance
Best Attitude
Best Collaboration
7. Final Reflection
What was the most challenging part of understanding the lyrics?
How did ChatGPT help interpret the song?
What new words or expressions did you learn?
Final Thoughts: Music, AI, and Critical Thinking
A Musical Challenge with ChatGPT: “Sing and Discover” (Desafío Musical con ChatGPT: “Cantar y Descubrir”) is an activity I’ve found to be especially effective in my intermediate and advanced courses. I use it when students are feeling overwhelmed or distracted, often around midterms, as a way to help them relax and reconnect with the material. It serves as a refreshing break, allowing students to step away from the stress of assignments and refocus in a fun, interactive way. By incorporating music, creativity, and technology, we keep students present in the class, even when everything else seems to demand their attention.
Beyond offering a well-deserved pause, this activity sparks engaging discussions around language interpretation, cultural context, and the role of AI in education. As students compare their own interpretations of song lyrics with those generated by ChatGPT, they begin to recognize both the value and limitations of AI. These insights foster critical thinking, helping them to develop a more mature approach to technology and its impact on their learning.
Adding the karaoke element further enhances the experience, giving students a chance to perform their new verses and have fun while practicing their language skills. Displaying the lyrics on a screen makes the activity more inclusive, allowing everyone to follow along. To make it even more enjoyable, selecting songs that resonate with students’ tastes—whether it’s a classic like La Llorona or a contemporary hit from artists like Bad Bunny, Selena, Daddy Yankee, or Karol G—makes the activity feel more personal and engaging.
This activity isn’t just limited to the classroom. It’s a great addition to Spanish Clubs or special events, where students can bond over a shared love of music while practicing their language skills. After all, who doesn’t enjoy a good parody of their favorite song?
By blending language learning with music and technology, Desafío Musical con ChatGPT creates a dynamic, interactive environment that reinvigorates students and deepens their connection to both the language and the evolving role of AI. It turns moments of exhaustion into opportunities for creativity, cultural exploration, and renewed enthusiasm for learning.
Angela Rodriguez Mooney, PhD, is an assistant professor of Spanish and the Texas Women’s University.
References
Baghurst, Timothy, and Betty C. Kelley. “An examination of stress in college students over the course of a semester.” Health promotion practice 15, no. 3 (2014): 438-447.
Degrave, Pauline. “Music in the foreign language classroom: How and why.” Journal of language teaching and research 10, no. 3 (2019): 412-420.
Felder, Richard M., and Eunice R. Henriques. “Learning and teaching styles in foreign and second language education.” Foreign language annals 28, no. 1 (1995): 21-31.
Nuessel, Frank, and April D. Marshall. “Practices and principles for engaging the three communicative modes in Spanish through songs and music.” Hispania (2008): 139-146.
Kumar, Tribhuwan, Shamim Akhter, Mehrunnisa M. Yunus, and Atefeh Shamsy. “Use of music and songs as pedagogical tools in teaching english as foreign language contexts.” Education Research International 2022, no. 1 (2022): 1-9
How can universities best support the UK’s research base to deliver better outcomes for people? This is becoming an ever more urgent challenge for our sector, in the context of a changing geopolitical landscape and the desire of the UK government for research and innovation to better serve the public good.
One route to deriving greater public benefit from academic research lies in research better connecting with and informing public policy development. Recent years have seen a growing number of universities establishing policy units – at least 46, at the last count, and almost certainly more now. There has also been increased investment in policy-focused activity from research funders, for example, Research England’s Policy Support Fund, UKRI policy fellowships, and ESRC investments to increase policymaker engagement with research. New mechanisms to strengthen evidence use, such as government areas of research interest and parliamentary thematic research leads, have been introduced, alongside an increased focus on building capacity for evidence use across sub-national government.
Through the Covid-19 pandemic, we saw the myriad ways in which research evidence informed policy to deliver benefits for people, whether understanding and treating the disease, informing the public health response, or mitigating the wider social impacts.
You can’t always get what you want
“Academic-policy engagement” is becoming increasingly mainstream, as part of universities’ wider knowledge exchange or civic engagement strategies. However, considerable barriers to engagement between academic researchers and policymakers remain. These include significant cultural differences, lack of incentives and investment, mismatched timescales and approaches, lack of access to academic research, and difficulties in parsing an ever-growing volume of information.
Policymakers often express a desire for a streamlined, “one stop” interface with academics to enable them to quickly and easily reach the right expertise at the right time. Given such barriers, this is much easier said than done.
Too often, where interaction does happen, it is short-term, ad hoc, dependent on individual contacts, and enabled through fixed-term funding rather than sustainable approaches. Many institutions lack both the capacity and the necessary capabilities to respond to policy needs.
There is no systematic mechanism for policymakers to engage with universities in order to identify and access the expertise they need, or for universities and researchers to identify policy needs, still less provide a coordinated response. This means that policymakers do not necessarily have access to the best evidence, only that which is most readily available.
What is now required is a serious focus on establishing a more systematic and sustainable approach. Such an approach requires organisational capacity and individual capability, alongside greater collaboration and coordination across the academic-policy ecosystem.
The policy connection cavalry is here
This is where the Universities Policy Engagement Network (UPEN) comes in. Established in 2018 UPEN is a voluntary network of over 120 universities, research centres, and policy organisations across the UK, currently hosted at UCL. Our university members comprise diverse institutions, from large, research-intensive to small, specialist institutions, across all parts of the UK. UPEN provides an interface between all areas of academic research and public policymaking, with strong relationships with the UK’s four national legislatures and 25 government departments and growing links with local and regional policymakers.
UPEN has until now been powered by the contributions of our members: both financial and, crucially, time. With a new funding award from Research England and ESRC, we now have the opportunity to build a national “connective infrastructure” which can respond to growing policy demand, at multiple levels of government, for academic expertise and evidence.
Enhancing UPEN’s ability to provide this interface will enable us as a sector to work in a more coordinated and efficient way. It will also foster greater diversity in academic-policy engagement by ensuring a greater breadth of evidence and voices are heard. And it will build on previous UKRI investments to underpin stronger collaboration and collective action to harness the full potential of the university research base.
Our new programmes of work will focus on three key areas. First, supporting universities to strengthen their academic engagement with public policy by enhancing individual and organisational capabilities. Second, strengthening place-based approaches to academic-policy engagement. Third, developing a national knowledge brokerage function to mobilise academic expertise to respond at the point of policy need.
The UK government is grappling with multiple complex and cross-cutting policy challenges – from bolstering a weak economy, to improving energy security and sustainability, to tackling problems with the health service, to addressing housing needs. It is time for us, as a sector, to better leverage the knowledge of universities to address these challenges in order to deliver better outcomes for citizens across the UK.
After 13 years of testing higher-order active learning modalities in the classroom, collecting data, building a database, and analyzing student learning results in bi-annual principles of marketing classes, my colleague and I saw two important results emerge. First, all students, regardless of their SES (socio-economic status) standing, showed significantly higher levels of retained learning than the control group which used the time-honored lectures, basic active learning techniques, and case approaches. Secondly, of greater importance, lower-level SES students showed significantly higher retained learning than the general student population. In surveying the literature, significant results have been reported for all students, but not significantly higher than the norm for lower-level SES students.
In the beginning, we decided to build a database measuring what might work better than the currently accepted flipped classroom concept. This step was taken especially since it became more difficult for me over the years in the classroom to keep today’s device-driven students focused beyond 10 seconds or less on an assigned major concept for each of my fifty-minute classes. Retained learning was there but not at the expected levels. In the last 15-20 years as a college professor, especially in marketing and management courses, I have struggled to keep students’ attention, keep them engaged, and keep them on the desired path to improved retained learning of the important course concepts. Fortunately, the classic lecture format, “we speak-you listen”, was replaced years ago by variations of the flipped classroom—students read and studied course content on their own and came to class ready to discuss the major components and issues of what was being studied. However, in this environment, professors must also demonstrate how to apply major concepts to actual problems.
What are the Necessary Steps to Specifically Help SES Students?
We started with guidance from Jean Piaget’s Constructivist Learning Theory, “a process of constructing knowledge based on experience” which embraced active learning modalities as viable examples of the theory. In doing so, we were able to proceed to acceptable testing for TBL/PjBL (Task-Based Learning/Project-Based Learning), simulation, and TBL/PjBL aspects of active learning. With the promise of significantly improving student retained learning experiences, we proceeded to apply the processes to the major classroom concepts under study, connecting them to relevant, firsthand, rigorously applied applications. The best results came from the highest order TBL/PjBL combined modalities where teams chose their own community service projects,
How do you start this process? Some form of testing should be considered if such modalities have not been tried in the past. While our data collection was for entry level classes to a major, it is not recommended that you do that. For that class level, I recommend the simulation modality as offered by some of the major publishers. In addition, we found that problem-based learning, using specific real -world problems, did not work well in my classes as every semester had a different local problem supplied. I also realized that any single problem assignment for the semester in the PjBL format could not be stretched to cover all the semester’s major concepts in the discipline.
Here is a basic framework for using simulation or the TBL/PjBL combination in certain marketing, management, and other related business classes as examples:
1. Choose a Familiar Visualization
To start with, for any principles or like-named introductory classes in the major, regardless of how you introduce the higher order modalities, it is important that you choose a visualization for students to use in their application exercises. In marketing, I use a bookbag (backpack) because of the obvious student familiarity. In management, it might be a company. In sociology, it might be a defined demographic group. In picking a visualization, make sure students have experience with it as a necessary knowledge base on which to build their applications for greater retained learning. This step is essential in all forms of active learning, especially in the higher order modalities. Even though current generational students resist group work, I encouraged them to team up with a study partner (for experience) where they can help each other with content, application, and reporting (even though all submissions must be individual and not just copied from their partner).
If you do not have experience with simulation or TBL/PjBL, it is strongly recommended to test the various forms in a segment of the course, such as in the last four weeks. The easiest way to start this segment is to use a graded, flipped simulation where students apply the application outside of class in that timeframe, with you testing the applied learning results using one concept per week. The way I did this was to have each student submit a written weekly ¾ page minimum response showing how they applied that week’s concept. This will require extra work for you, but the results should be enlightening to your teaching success along with problem areas that should be addressed.
If you choose just simulation, McGraw Hill, for example, uses 8-10 application-based activities (called ABAs) for critical inclusion at set times throughout the semester. Because of the lack of student experience in a general business operation, I allowed three tries at each activity before posting a student’s grade. Two weeks before the end of the semester, I offered students extra credit if they ran the whole marketing process to sell backpacks. Anecdotally, adding TBL/PjBL modalities were too much for them to manage and there was too much group conflict. Thus, a month of individual response classes could be considered a capstone for the class. Now, with the introduction to generative AI, you will now need to review how to let the students use it as a source, just like Google or any other such media; however, be sure to have them quote their source along with properly noting with exact quotes for any AI content used as presented.
For your classes at upper levels such as marketing communications and consumer behavior, use the combined higher order active learning TBL/PjBL model. On the first day of class, define the visualization requirement; however, this will be different for each group as they choose their project. Next, in that same class period, note that they will be working in groups for their TBL/PjBL project with each formed group confirmed by you two weeks in. Define the group size as no more than four students; no less than two students if necessary (class size, resistance etc. may impact choices). Even if you have used or are familiar with higher order modalities in the classroom, you should review the most current literature on how and why components of cooperation must be included (which includes collaboration) and what constitutes an effective TBL/PjBL group. My colleague and I have found that TBL/PjBL projects worked better if developed, designed, and implemented by each student team and with our professorial guidance.
I suggest that you review the details on why the community service project is best, starting with Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, and Whitt (2005) who first mentioned this approach and recognized its benefits, and Kuh (2008) who expanded on them. See also von Freymann and Cuffe (2020) for six reasons to choose community service projects. Our university has been quite pleased with the outcomes and publicity—along with a sizable donation to one of our schools as a thank you.
2. Form Intentional Teams and Track Achievement Data
Be sure to devise measurement methods for data collection from the start of class to record and compare lower-level SES student achievement versus non-lower-level SES student achievements. Allowing groups to form on their own may not allow for using all the aspects of higher-order cooperation. As an aside: Group composition is often the most difficult step in upper-level classes as many may have their friends in class and who they feel more comfortable working with. A class vote has not worked in the past, so you need to consider setting up the teams yourself guided by your experience with these students and their posted GPAs. You will get some pushbacks, but you should explain in class at the beginning of the semester why this will work better for everyone in the end.
3. Syllabus Inclusions
Syllabus inclusions—promise and provide proper guidance throughout the semester with individual teams outside of class. Also review situations and/or results in class that apply to all the groups’ efforts. Once decided, be sure to update your syllabus with the revised details of what’s expected, how to do it, and what graded parts will be needed.
From the beginning, it’s important to clearly explain in your syllabus how the process will be conducted and assessed, including the required written submissions and final presentation for all higher-order modality applications. For TBL/PjBL, part of the process should require a group response of what was found in the literature review. This will help support the plan recommendation in the final written document and presentation. (Students in the simulation classes should be assigned some individual concept research as well to help them get used to using other sources.) Due to the added student workload, the team research should be submitted by mid-semester for acceptance and separate grading by the professor. Each team member must submit three to five supporting articles with an assessment of how it will help the planning process.
Using the tenants of Constructivist Theory for support, explain to students how the theory should work for them and remind them throughout the course to focus on what they might know, can vicariously relate to, and what they have adapted to, as their base experience in learning the course core concepts as they are revealed by you throughout the semester.
Dr. von Freymann spent thirty years in advertising and marketing as a practitioner working with many companies from high tech to consumer products, national to local. Moving on, Jeff earned an MBA and DBA, each with a marketing emphasis and spent the later part of his career teaching, settling at Wingate University as an associate professor. Using his business experience, he was able to show students how the business process works and why it’s essential for them to be able to apply that learning after graduation.
In recent years, higher education has witnessed a surge in conversations around student mental health. National surveys consistently report escalating rates of anxiety, depression, and loneliness among college students (American College Health Association 2023). Yet despite these growing concerns, faculty remain largely underprepared to intervene effectively. While staff in student affairs and counseling centers are often trained in mental health response and early intervention, faculty are frequently left out of these critical conversations. This divide has resulted in a persistent gap—both in knowledge and in action.
Studies show that students are more likely to exhibit early signs of distress in the classroom than in other campus spaces, making faculty key frontline responders (Lipson et al., 2022). However, faculty often report feeling ill-equipped or unsure about how to identify mental health concerns or refer students appropriately. A 2020 national survey of faculty found that only 51% felt confident in recognizing when a student might need help, and fewer than 30% had received any formal training (NASPA, 2020). In addition, given the other responsibilities to achieve tenure, it can be challenging to know how to prioritize a list of competing needs.
Despite the increase in mental health programming across universities, little has changed in how faculty are prepared to support students. Institutions often prioritize staff development in these areas, assuming counseling centers or student affairs teams will manage the bulk of mental health interventions. However, without better integration of faculty into institutional wellbeing strategies, students may continue to fall through the cracks.
Recognizing the Signs: What Faculty Can Do
Common signs of student distress—frequent absences, changes in participation, disorganized thinking, or emotional outbursts—often surface in classroom settings. While faculty are not expected to diagnose or treat mental health conditions, being able to recognize these red flags and respond appropriately can be lifesaving.
It is important for faculty to understand their role in the broader system of care: to notice, approach with compassion, and refer. The role does not include functioning as a therapist. Each faculty member has been socialized in their respective fields for several years. That training should not be set aside. Rather, learning how to refer students is vital. Still, the referral process can be opaque. Many faculty are unaware of what services are available, who to call, or what their responsibility is after making a referral. Closing this knowledge gap requires clear, accessible systems—and consistent faculty inclusion in mental health trainings and initiatives.
From Concern to Connection: The Power of Referral
Faculty can make a difference by normalizing help-seeking behavior and offering concrete pathways to support. A simple statement like, “I’ve noticed you seem a bit off lately—are you okay? If you’d like, I can help you find someone to talk to,” can build trust and remove stigma. Learning the language of how to intervene can help facilitate the appropriate connection to campus services. The goal is to get students connected to care in ways that faculty can provide.
The Divide Between Faculty and Staff
Staff members in counseling services and student affairs are trained in trauma-informed practices, crisis response, and developmental theory. Faculty, by contrast, are rarely required to learn these skills, even as they face growing demands to support student wellbeing.
This disconnect is structural, not personal. The division between academic and student affairs has long been a feature of higher education. Yet if we are to meet the holistic needs of students, institutions must actively dismantle these silos and build collaborative, cross-functional approaches to care. Faculty should be partners in designing wellbeing strategies, not peripheral to them.
Supporting Faculty Mental Health
It’s also essential to acknowledge that faculty are under pressure too. Burnout, compassion fatigue, and rising expectations in teaching and service can make it difficult to engage in additional emotional labor. Supporting student mental health cannot come at the expense of faculty wellbeing. It should also be noted that female presenting faculty are more likely to be approached by students to share about their mental health. Female presenting faculty may be carrying the additional stress of trying to help students in addition to their other duties.
Institutions must invest in faculty support systems—professional development, access to mental health resources, and workload adjustments—to ensure sustainable engagement. Training in student mental health should be framed not as an added burden, but as a shared responsibility that supports teaching, learning, and community resilience.
Toward a Culture of Care
UMBC is advancing a “Culture of CARE” that centers equity, resilience, and connection across the campus experience. For faculty, this means being empowered to recognize when students need help, equipped with tools to respond appropriately, and connected to a broader network of care. It also means ensuring that faculty themselves are cared for, supported, and not left to carry this burden alone.
As the Assistant Vice President for health and wellbeing, I enjoy assisting in bridging the divide between faculty and staff. By embedding mental health into the culture of higher education, we can create campuses where everyone—students and educators alike—can thrive.
Dr. Rae Chresfield is a higher education leader with over 15 years of experience in mental health, wellbeing, and student support. A first-generation college graduate, she began her academic journey at Coastal Carolina Community College and earned a B.S. in Behavioral Science from the University of Maryland University College, an M.A. in Mental Health and Wellness from NYU, and a Ph.D. in Counselor Education and Supervision from SUNY Buffalo.
Dr. Chresfield has held progressive leadership roles in higher education, including Director of Counseling Services, Associate Dean of Health and Wellness, and Assistant Professor. She currently serves as the inaugural Assistant Vice President for Health and Wellbeing at UMBC, where she leads strategic efforts to embed a holistic Culture of CARE across campus. Her work focuses on integrated service delivery and bridging the gap between mental health professionals and institutional leadership.
Widely known as “Dr. Rae,” she is recognized for her compassionate approach and commitment to student-centered systems that support wellbeing, equity, and resilience.
References
American College Health Association. 2023. National College Health Assessment: Spring 2023 Reference Group Data Report. Silver Spring, MD: ACHA.
Lipson, Sarah K., Laura H. Eisenberg, and Daniel Eisenberg. 2022. “Faculty and Mental Health: Knowledge, Confidence, and Responsibility.” Journal of American College Health 70(6): 1491–1500. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2021.1909043.
NASPA. 2020. The Role of Faculty in Student Mental Health: Results of a National Survey. Washington, DC: NASPA Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.
Psychosocial and Academic Trust Alienation (PATA) Theory as a Methodological Lens
Higher education is experiencing post-pandemic challenges which have increased pressure on students in multifaceted and interconnecting ways (Jones & Bell, 2024). Existing research suggests that post-pandemic, students’ mental health and wellbeing has been significantly impacted (Chen & Lubock, 2022; Defeyter et al, 2021; Jones & Bell, 2025; McGiven & Shepherd, 2022; Nunn et al, 2021). This indicates that research into the field of higher education is needed more pro-actively than ever before, especially given the diverse student market.
Currently there is considerable research in the form of critique of policy trends or evaluation of the effectiveness of changes in practice; however, the PATA theory lens suggests an approach to research centring on the educational psychologies and intricacies of the student and the enigma of student engagement (Buckley, 2018; Jones & Nangah, 2020: McFarlane & Thomas, 2017).
Our recent article presents the PATA theory as a methodological lens through which higher education student behaviours, characteristics, and demographics can be researched. Furthermore, it provides an explanation of the PATA theory with specific links to student engagement. The idea of the PATA theory was first explored by Jones in 2017 and developed further in 2020 and 2021 in response to recognised issues faced relating to student engagement in widening participation student demographics. This research establishes the theory which can be applied to investigating the complexities of student demographics, with the aim being to develop knowledge and understanding of issues affecting students such as post-pandemic engagement.
Guidelines from the QAA (2018) state that due to the demographic of the students who attend each institution, student engagement needs to be interpreted and encouraged in response to student/higher education institutional need. Therefore, student engagement can be interpreted in a variety of ways, examining the links between time, energy and other properties invested by HEIs and students with the aims of cultivating the student experience, strengthening educational outcomes, encouraging development and raising student achievement. Positive student engagement can lead to successful student outcomes, lower attrition rates and improved social mobility, demonstrating the importance of research for understanding and investing in student engagement practices.
The PATA theory sits under the umbrella of alienation theory: it considers the individual student’s psychosocial status (self-concept/self-esteem levels) and has identified links to academic trust levels (Jones, 2021), particularly for students from the widening participation demographics or those who have experienced socio-economic disadvantage, see figure 1.
The PATA theory fits as a methodology within the realms of phenomenology as it enables researchers to present a narrative to represent the phenomena studied to extract significant statements from the data to formulate meaning. Neubauer, Witkop and Varpio (2019, p91) believe it is imperative for the researcher engaging in phenomenological research to be familiar with the philosophical ‘interpretations of human experience’, whilst Morrow, Rodriguez and King (2015, p644) advise that ‘descriptive phenomenology is especially valuable in areas where there is little existing research’. An additional crucial aspect of phenomenology is understanding that social reality has to be grounded in an individual’s encounters in authentic social situations. The focal point of the PATA theory lens research is to understand how students’ psychosocial status affects the academic trust of their higher education experiences and the relationships that arise out of the social exchanges therein, permitting researchers to construe the associations that the participants make.
This article analyses the PATA theory potential range of research methods that can be employed and used in higher education practice and is supported by three case vignette examples with reflection points. For example, we would usually see student disengagement relating to activities such as non-attendance, but the PATA theory shows us that the concept of student engagement is much more complex and encourages higher education institutions and professionals to view the issue in a more holistic student-centred way rather than homogenously.
Additionally, post-Covid there has been a significant rise in the number of students presenting with mental health issues, with students struggling to attend and engage with their programmes of study. Currently, the assessment strategies used by HEIs for capturing student engagement fail accurately to measure both student engagement and sense of belonging. However, using the PATA theory as the research lens would provide a deeper insight into the post pandemic issues faced, by focussing on student alienation and the strengthening of trust between the student and the institution. HEIs could then scrutinise their existing on-campus experiences to aid the re-engagement process, and practice could be adapted to increase the student experience, such as including more pastoral 1:1 support time within the timetable.
Some further practical illustrations of how the PATA theory might influence our understanding or make a difference in practice are:
To understand potential psychological barriers to student engagement based on demographics, behaviours and characteristics.
To identify success stories of positive engagement where good practice can be disseminated or shared to improve student outcomes.
To take a deep dive into higher education practices, course or programmes to find out if there are specific teaching and learning barriers affecting students.
Provides time and space to analyse intricate needs of specific demographics; behaviours and characteristics such as impact of low tariff on entry gaps or previous educational experiences.
Can lead to bespoke action to address potential equality and inclusion concerns.
Can be used as an early intervention tool to support students’ re-engagement potentially contributing to reduced attrition and improvements in social mobility.
Can be used to explore wider societal issues that affect engagement
The PATA theory has its limitations, being a new and emerging theoretical perspective, and is very much open to academic critique. However, this concept does bring new insight to the complexities of the student community, the higher education institutional and political landscapes and could be used as a methodological lens to develop deeper knowledge and understanding of student engagement challenges. Whilst the PATA theory is a complex idea applied to a range of complex student issues, when the phenomenon is understood well, there is the potential to really make a difference to the educational outcomes for students. Furthermore, existing theories do not make connections between psychosocial status and academic trust which is where the PATA theory can contribute to a stronger understanding of the student phenomena.
The article on which this blog is based is
Jones, C. S., and Sweeney, L (2025) ‘The Psychosocial and Academic Trust Alienation (PATA) Theory: A new lens to research higher education student phenomena: behaviours, characteristics, and demographics’ Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal, 6(1), 79–110 https://sehej.raise-network.com/raise/article/view/1240.
Caroline Jones is an applied social sciences teaching professional with extensive experience working in the children and young people field and lecturing/programme leading in Higher Education. Currently employed as a Tutor based within the Health and Education Faculty at Manchester Metropolitan University, having previously been a Lecturer at the University Campus Oldham and at Stockport University Centre. Also an External Examiner for Derby University/Middlesex University and a Peer Reviewer for IETI. Research interests include; leadership and management, social mobility and social policy, risk, resilience and adolescent mental health, young care leavers, widening participation and disadvantage, originator of the ‘psychosocial and academic trust alienation’ (PATA) theory.
Leonie Sweeney is a teaching professional within the Applied Social Sciences faculty at Manchester Metropolitan University, with many years of experience working within the children and young people sector. Currently employed as a Higher Education Course Leader and Lecturer, delivering Children and Young People and Early Years degree courses. Additionally, is an External Examiner for University of Chichester and University of Sunderland. Research interests include: student engagement, social mobility, widening participation.
Unibuddy, a higher education peer-to-peer engagement platform, has officially launched Assistant – an AI tool designed to support large-scale, authentic student-led conversations.
Following a successful beta phase, the tool is now fully live with 30 institutions worldwide and delivering impressive results: tripling student engagement, cutting staff workload significantly, and maintaining over 95% accuracy.
As universities face increasing pressure from tighter budgets and rising student expectations, Unibuddy said its Assistant tool offers a powerful solution to scale meaningful engagement efficiently, combining the speed of AI with the authenticity of real student voices.
65,000 unique students have used Assistant
100,000+ student questions answered automatically without requiring manual intervention
125% increase in students having conversations
60% increase in lead capture
five hours saved per day for university staff
“Today’s students demand instant, authentic and trustworthy communication,” said Diego Fanara, CEO at Unibuddy. “Unibuddy Assistant is the first and only solution that fuses the speed of AI with the credibility of peer-to-peer guidance – giving institutions a scalable way to meet expectations without sacrificing quality or trust.”
Unibuddy has partnered with more than 600 institutions globally and has supported over 3,000,000 prospective students through the platform. As part of this extensive network, it regularly conducts surveys to uncover fresh insights. Although chatbots are now common in higher education, survey findings highlight key limitations in their effectiveness:
84%of students said that university responses were too slow (Unibuddy Survey, 2025)
79%of students said it was important that universities balance AI automation (for speed) and human interaction (for depth) while supporting them as they navigate the decision-making process (Unibuddy Survey, 2025)
51%ofstudents say they wouldn’t trust a chatbot to answer questions about the student experience (Unibuddy Survey, 2024)
78% say talking to a current student is helpful — making them 3.5x more likely to trust a peer than a bot (Unibuddy Survey, 2025)
Only 14% of students felt engaged by the universities they applied to (Unibuddy Survey, 2025)
Unibuddy says these finding have shaped its offering: using AI to handle routine questions and highlight valuable information, while smoothly handing off to peer or staff conversations when a personal, human connection is needed.
Buckinghamshire New Universityused Unibuddy Assistant to transform early-stage engagement – generating 800,000 impressions, 30,000 clickthroughs, and 10,000+ student conversationsin just six months. The university saved over 2,000 staff hoursand saw 3,000 referrals to students or staff.
Today’s students demand instant, authentic and trustworthy communication Diego Fanara, Unibuddy
Meanwhile the University of South Florida Muma College of Business reported over 30 staff hours saved per month, with a 59% click-to-conversation rate and over a third of chats in Assistant resulting in referrals to student ambassador conversations.
And the University of East Anglia deployed Assistant across more than 100 web pages, as part of the full Unibuddy product suites deployment of peer-to-peer chat, with student-led content contributing to a 62% offer-to-student conversion rate compared with 34% of those who didn’t engage with Unibuddy.
The shift to virtual learning, accelerated by the global pandemic, has fundamentally transformed the way education is delivered. As a result, the lasting impact of this transition, along with the necessary adaptations, continues to reshape how education is offered to its target market. With the growing demand for contemporary online education, it is crucial to analyze instructional design – a systematic process that applies psychological principles of human learning to develop effective instructional solutions. This involves evaluating the most effective methods and learning environments to engage students and enhance their achievement of desired learning outcomes.
In this light, designing and facilitating online discussions to increase student engagement, peer connection, and idea exchange, as well as creating a cohesive online learning community for knowledge creation, is far more important for the success of online education. However, delivering online education is crucial in this circumstance as it is really challenging to effectively engage students in the learning process. As students and educators adapt to digital platforms, student engagement has emerged as a key concern in online learning. Traditional classroom techniques often fall short in this new landscape, requiring educators to explore innovative instructional strategies. Two such approaches—microlearning and andragogy—offer promising solutions to enhance student engagement and knowledge retention.
In the traditional learning environment, student engagement levels varied, and educators could easily gauge participation where, in online platforms, the lack of physical presence and direct interaction makes it difficult to assess student engagement. The challenge is further compounded by students balancing their studies with household chores which can lead to decreased motivation if adequate support is not provided by the instructor. Therefore, it is evident that online learning presents a unique set of challenges. Thus, the students who study online must be self-motivated and disciplined enough to work alone as the lack of face-to-face accountability makes it easier for them to drop out without being noticed.
As a result, in today’s competitive lifelong learning landscape, an online course that simply gives information is no better than any other. Hence, instructors should differentiate themselves by offering innovative and interactive online courses that engage, connect, and transform students, enabling them to learn efficiently and effectively from anywhere, converting learning into an enjoyable experience. Consequently, the role of instructors becomes more crucial in designing effective online learning experiences that foster active student participation. Thus, in this turbulent environment, the social, economic, and technical developments elicit new learning concepts and practices, leading to transformations in the way education is delivered to meet the high expectations of the corporate sector. Therefore, the role played by microlearning and andragogy in enhancing online student engagement is crucial in the current context.
Microlearning: Small Bites, Big Impact
Microlearning delivers content in small, focused segments, allowing learners to absorb and retain information more effectively. Research has shown that this approach enables students to process and recall course materials in a more manageable way. Giurgiu (2017) describes that microlearning consists of “bite-sized” educational chunks, usually lasting only a few minutes and designed to cater to the learner’s individual needs. Moreover, microlearning’s approach to delivering short, fine-grained, interconnected and loosely coupled learning activities emphasizes individual learning needs (Singh, 2014). Thus, microlearning fits within the constraints of human cognitive capacity by aligning with how working memory functions. Research highlights that short, structured learning modules enhance engagement and reduce cognitive overload. Hence, in contrast to traditional lengthy lectures, microlearning helps move information from working memory to long-term memory more effectively. In this way, microlearning has become so demanding in current online education.
Another advantage of microlearning is that it addresses the forgetting curve, which predicts that memory retention will deteriorate over time if not reinforced. The forgetting curve illustrates how humans have a tendency to lose nearly half of newly learned information within days or weeks unless they consciously review the learned information. Further, the forgetting curve supports one of the seven types of memory failures: transience which refers to the natural process of forgetting as time passes.
Spaced repetition techniques used in microlearning counteract this decline by reinforcing knowledge retention at periodic intervals. This method involves recalling the same material multiple times over a period, helping to solidify the information in long-term memory with each recall.
Another point where microlearning enhances online student engagement is that it enables students to be entirely focused on and more engaged in learning by allowing them to complete lessons according to their own schedule rather than on someone else’s schedule. Further, in online education as learning takes place outside of the classroom, it has a greater potential for application than typical classroom learning by integrating learning with experience. In this arena, microlearning allows for location-based learning, which can be quite beneficial in increasing students’ engagement in online learning platforms.
Another method of incorporating microlearning to boost online student engagement is to simply include specific sorts of micro lessons within the course itself which can more-or-less run parallel to the course. Microlearning can be integrated into online education using digital tools like Kahoot, GoSoapBox, and Padlet, as well as interactive quizzes ensuring a more interactive and engaging learning experience. Furthermore, designing course materials in concise, digestible formats allows students to integrate learning into their daily schedules more effectively. In this way, microlearning not only brings education back to its original format in some sense but also enhances online student engagement in numerous ways.
Andragogy: Engaging Adult Learners
As the demographics of online learners shift toward older and more diverse groups, understanding how adults learn is essential. Knowles’ andragogical principles emphasize self-directed learning, real-world application, and experiential learning, which are particularly relevant in virtual educational settings. Unlike younger students, adult learners tend to be goal-oriented, seeking education that directly contributes to their career or personal development. They benefit from problem-centered learning and contextual applications, making real-world examples, discussion forums, and interactive activities essential components of online education. Thus, for effective engagement of adult learners in online education, educators must incorporate techniques such as:
encouraging self-paced learning with embedded resources for independent study
facilitating peer discussions and collaborative problem-solving exercises and
utilizing real-world case studies to link theoretical concepts with practical applications.
In practice, andragogy works best when it is tailored to the characteristics of the learners and the learning circumstance.
Combining Microlearning and Andragogy for Optimal Engagement
Recent changes in the macro environment, in the form of advancements in technology and natural transitions, shifted education from traditional platforms to virtual platforms where student engagement is crucial for the success of the learning process. Thus, blending microlearning with andragogical principles creates an effective learning framework that accommodates both cognitive and experiential learning styles. While microlearning breaks down complex topics into smaller units for better retention, andragogy ensures that these units are meaningful and applicable in real-life scenarios. Thus, educators can implement this blended approach by:
structuring courses into short, interactive modules aligned with real-world applications
incorporating multimedia elements, such as videos, infographics, and gamified content to enhance engagement
encouraging student-led discussions and collaborative learning environments
providing frequent, low-stakes assessments that reinforce learning without adding stress
Addressing Online Learning Challenges
Despite its advantages, online learning presents distinct challenges. Unlike face-to-face settings where instructors can monitor student behavior and adjust teaching methods accordingly, online educators must rely on different strategies to enhance student engagement. Many students struggle with motivation and time management, often due to external distractions. Additionally, the absence of direct supervision can lead to passive learning behaviors, where students disengage without accountability. Thus, to combat these issues, instructors must take a proactive approach in designing online courses. Therefore, ensuring frequent interaction between educators and students, integrating real-world problem-solving activities, and leveraging technological tools can enhance student engagement. Furthermore, the use of formative assessments and timely feedback creates an environment where students feel supported and encouraged.
Conclusion
As online education continues to evolve, educators must adopt innovative strategies to maintain student engagement and improve learning outcomes with microlearning and andragogy provide a structured approach in achieving this goal. Microlearning, as a natural extension of traditional learning, leverages the potential of mobile technology to deliver short, focused lessons that enhance retention while andragogical principles ensure that learning is relevant and applicable to real-life situations. By integrating both approaches, educators can create a dynamic, engaging, and effective online learning experience for learners of all ages. Moreover, the success of online education hinges on its ability to keep learners motivated and actively engaged. Thus, by utilizing a proper combination of traditional and modern instructional strategies, instructors can foster an environment where students not only absorb knowledge but also apply it effectively in their academic and professional journeys.
N.K.L. Silva
Ms. Nilanthige Kaushalya Lakmali Silva is a Lecturer at the Department of Accountancy, University of Kelaniya. She teaches Management, Economics, Human Resource Management, Marketing Management, Strategic Management and Information Management. Ms. Silva holds a B.B.Mgt. (Special) Degree in Accountancy with a First-Class Honours and an M.Sc. in Management with a Merit. Her research interests include major areas of Accounting and Finance, with a particular focus on Sri Lanka’s Capital Markets, Micro and Macro Economic Environment, Corporate Governance, and Corporate Fraud. She has published several research papers in academic journals and conference proceedings. She is a CMA Sri Lanka Passed Finalist and has completed the Diploma in Banking and Finance at the Institute of Bankers of Sri Lanka.
N. P. K. Ekanayake
Ms. Neranjana Priyangani Kumari Ekanayake, a senior lecturer at the University of Kelaniya, teaches Investment and Portfolio Management, Enterprise Resource Planning, Behavioural Finance, and Advanced Management Accounting. She holds a BBA in Accounting (Special) and an MSc in Management (Specialized in Finance) and is a CIMA passed finalist.
References
Bustillo-booth, M. (2019). Applying Andragogy to Online Course Design to Increase Student Engagement and Success. Magna Publications Inc., 1–26.
Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating Effective Student Engagement in Online Courses: What Do Students Find Engaging? Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1–13.
Knowles, M. S., Holton III, E. F. & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development.
Orlando, J. (2021). Using Microlearning to Improve Student Understanding of Course Content. Magna Publications Inc., 1–18.
Palis, A. G., & Quiros, P. A. (2014). Adult Learning Principles and Presentation Pearls. Middle East African Journal of Ophthalmology, 21(2), 114–122.
Zheng, M. S. (2016). How to Design and Facilitate Online Discussions that Improve Student Learning and Engagement. Magna Publications Inc., 1–18.
