The Impact of Group Experiential Learning on Student Engagement

Cary Winsett
Tarleton State University

Christi Foster
Tarleton State University

Jodie Dearing
Tarleton State University

Gerald Burch
Tarleton State University

ABSTRACT

Students must become engaged cognitively in class, out of class, affectively, and
physically in order to understand new material and to demonstrate their mastery
of the new knowledge. One means of increasing student engagement has been to
provide students with more experiential learning activities. A second area of
interest for increasing student engagement has come from greater emphasis on
social learning. New research in social learning has emphasized the role of being
in a learning group’s impact on student engagement. The purpose of this research
was to combine these two literature streams to determine which, if any, group
experiential learning activities lead to student engagement. Our sample of 88
undergraduate business management students demonstrated that group discussion,
group projects, and group work affect the dimensions of student engagement in
different ways. We use these results to develop recommendations for educators to
increase student engagement and student learning and to provide researchers with
future research opportunities.

Introduction
Most educators will agree that in order for students to fully understand and demonstrate
understanding of a subject or concept, engagement in that subject or concept must be present.
According to Kuh (2003), the more time a student spends studying a subject or putting the concept
into use, the more the student will know about that subject. Thus student engagement is absolutely
important for learning. Kuh goes on to define engagement as “the time and energy students devote
to educationally sound activities inside and outside of the classroom, and the policies and practices
that institutions use to induce students to take part in those activities.”

According to research, experiential learning is one way to increase the level of student engagement.
Experiential learning as defined by Itin (1999) as the process of making meaning from direct
experience. Experiential learning focuses on the learning process for the individual, and by actively

7
involving them in the learning process. The student therefore becomes more physically,
cognitively, and emotionally engaged.

Another method being used to increase student engagement is social learning. Social leaning, also
called “collaborative” or “cooperative” learning, and is defined as the process of acquiring
knowledge as a group (Bandura, 1977). It is through the social learning process that an individual
observes how others in the group act, observes the consequences, and modifies their individual
behavior, thus increasing their level of engagement and learning.

The purpose of this study was to determine if adding group experiential learning exercises in the
classroom increases student engagement. Experiential learning exercises were defined as group
discussion, group projects, and group work conducted during the course. Student engagement was
defined based on the four dimensions - emotional engagement, physical engagement, cognitive
engagement in class, and cognitive engagement out of class.

Student Engagement
Most educators want their students to put forth effort to understand and actually learn the concepts
being presented. In order for this to happen, students must be involved or engaged. The beginnings
of research into student involvement were begun in the 1980s by Alexander Astin who stated that
the quantity and quality of physical and psychological energy that students invest in the college
experience would equal the same amount of learning (Axelson & Flick, 2011). Astin went on to
say that engagement is largely a matter of behavior on the part of students. In this section we
define engagement and show how recent research has investigated this construct from a university
perspective, from the student perspective, and from the instructor’s perspective.

Kuh (2003, p. 25) defines engagement as “the time and energy students devote to educationally
sound activities inside and outside of the classroom, and the policies and practices that institutions
use to induce students to take part in these activities.” Kuh also notes that the more time a student
spends studying a subject or putting the concept into use the more the student will know about that
subject. Kuh’s work was instrumental in developing the National Student Survey of Engagement
(NSSE). The NSSE was designed in 1999 as an instrument to systematically compare student
engagement across universities and colleges. In the process, the NSSE was designed to measure
if “student behaviors highly correlated with many desirable learning and personal development
outcomes of college” (Axelson & Flick, 2011, p. 40). Some of the behaviors included in this
instrument are faculty-student contact, group work, number of hours per week spent on homework,
and institutional features such as a supportive campus environment. Hu and Wolniak (2010, p.
751) stated that “the effort by National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) has made it an
axiom that what matters in student outcomes is student engagement in college activities.”
Universities have adopted the NSSE to alter practices and policies at the highest levels to increase
student engagement.

A different view of engagement was given by students (Zimmerman, Schmidt, Becker, Peterson,
Nyland, & Surdick, 2014). When asked to describe what engagement meant to them, students
replied that active participation in class, comfort with instructor, and open communication were

8
the important aspects. These comments show that students are concerned with both physical and
emotional class components. Students associate engagement with active participation. However,
engagement may not happen if the student is not comfortable with the instruction or if the instructor
fails to communicate their expectations fairly and clearly.

The third perspective comes from the instructor and what the instructor can do to alter the learning
environment to increase student engagement. Keller’s (1983) ARCS management theory of
learner motivation uses theories of expectancy and social learning where (A) is the extent the
course content arouses student interest, (R) relates to personal goals, (C) connects learner’s success
expectancy, and (S) leads to the learner’s satisfaction. This approach once again leads to defining
engagement as a multidimensional, or meta-construct, consisting of three types of engagement –
behavioral, emotional, and cognitive (Axelson & Flick, 2011). It is noted that the observable part
of engagement may not be a valid indicator of true engagement. Students may seem curious or
interested about a subject or show other outward signs of engagement, but the student may not
actually acquire any knowledge of the subject. Another student may not show common signs of
physical engagement, but still be learning. Limited research has been conducted to show how
these three signs interrelate and how curricula delivery affects the cognitive, physical, and
emotional engagement of students.

Experiential Learning
Experiential learning is the process of making meaning from direct experience (i.e., learning from
experience) (Itin, 1999). Hoover (1974) stated that experiential learning involves more than just
the cognitive learning generally stressed by management education. Hoover and Whitehead (1975)
therefore defined experiential learning by stating that experiential learning exists when a
personally responsible participant cognitively, affectively, and behaviorally processes knowledge,
skills, and/or attitudes in a learning situation characterized by a high level of active involvement.
Experiential learning focuses on the learning process for the individual. It is often used
synonymously with the phrase “experiential education.” However, while experiential learning
considers the individual learning process, experiential education should be considered a broader
philosophy of education.

Experiential learning literature reveals several important approaches that must be considered in
the broader concept of student engagement. The first approach is experiential learning theory
(Kolb, 1984) which proposes that experiential learning has six main characteristics: (1) learning is
best conceived as a process, not in terms of outcomes; (2) learning is a continuous process
grounded in experience; (3) learning requires the resolution of conflicts between opposed modes
of adaptation to the world (learning is by its very nature full of tension); (4) learning is a holistic
process of adaptation to the world; (5) learning involves transactions between the person and the
environment; and (6) learning is the process of creating knowledge that is the result of the
transaction between social knowledge and personal knowledge.

The approach by Kolb (1984) and Hoover and his colleagues (Hoover & Whitehead, 1975;
Hoover, Giambatista, Sorenson, & Bommer, 2010) may differ, but experiential learning activities
are among the most powerful teaching and learning tools available (McCarthy & McCarthy, 2006).

9
There are many types of experiential learning activities, and we will address a few. However,
what is vital in experiential learning is that the individual is encouraged to directly involve
themselves in the experience and then to reflect on their experiences using analytic skills in order
that they gain a better understanding of the new knowledge and retain the information for a longer
time. Experiential learning requires self-initiative, an intention to learn, and an active phase of
learning (Moon, 2004).

Wolfe and Byrne (1975) stated that experientially-based approaches involve four phases: design,
conduct, evaluation, and feedback. Wolfe and Byrne go on to state that learning is best facilitated
when all four phases are present and repeated over time. The Experiential Learning Model (Pfeffer
& Jones, 1975) consists of five steps: (1) the activity phase (Experiencing); (2) sharing reactions
and observations (Publishing); (3) discussing patterns and dynamics (Processing); (4) developing
real world principles (Generalizing); and (5) planning effective use of learning (Applying).

A third approach, known as the “Four-Step Experiential Learning Model” or “ELM” (Loo, 2002),
is based on Kolb’s experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984) and includes a “Concrete
Experience,” followed by a “Reflective Observation”, moving then to an “Abstract
Conceptualization,” and finally ending at an “Active Experimentation.” In this model, the
experience forms “the basis for observation and reflection,” and the learner has the opportunity to
consider what is working or failing (reflective observation) and think about ways to improve on
the next attempt (abstract conceptualization). Every new attempt is informed by a cyclical pattern
of previous experience, thought, and reflection (active experimentation).

This discussion of experiential learning shows that active learning causes students to reconsider
their knowledge, thereby creating opportunities to learn. It is expected that it is this process of
active involvement in the classroom that also causes the student to become more physically
engagement. Hopefully, the student will also become more cognitively and emotionally engaged.
In the next section we will explore how group experiential learning activities may further
accelerate engagement by activating social learning.

Social Learning

Knowledge and understanding are sometimes best undertaken through collaboration with others
as opposed to individually. Social learning, also called “collaborative” or “cooperative” learning,
is defined as acquiring knowledge as a group (Bandura, 1977). It is a process of observing how
others in the group act, observing consequences, and acting to modify individual behavior. The
role models observed by learners are extremely influential in this process (Bandura, 1977).
Students must be active learners first, in order to take advantage of social learning; both active
learning and social learning are more student-driven than traditional college lectures (Perkins,
1999).

Not every concept calls for the time it takes to incorporate active learning, and active learning can
exist without social learning. However, social learning may help with learning specific types of
knowledge. Group discussion may help students with ritual knowledge – knowledge perceived as
being routine and meaningless (Perkins, 1999). Students without any business experience may
simply view the points on why small businesses fail as something to memorize for the exam and

10
not as anything meaningful to them. When a student shares their personal experiences with small
business with the group, the student becomes a contributing member of a community of practice
and makes it relevant and meaningful to other students (Kolb & Kolb, 2005).

Social learning may also prove a valuable use of time when teaching conceptually difficult
knowledge. Perkins writes, “Students learn the ritual responses to definitional questions and
quantitative problems, but their ‘incorrect’ intuitive beliefs and interpretations resurface on
qualitative problems and in outside-of-classroom contexts” (Perkins, 1999, p. 10). However, social
learning may have the biggest impact when learning foreign knowledge. Foreign, or alien,
knowledge runs contrary to our own perspective (Perkins, 1999). Through social learning, various
differing perspectives can be explored for an overall better understanding (Perkins 1999). An
example of this type of learning comes from learning about child labor laws. The use of child
labor runs counter to current developed nation’s perspectives. Students may not understand that
family survival may be based on the children’s ability to work in less-developed countries. In this
condition, social learning may take place by looking at historical perspectives or by involving
students who have grown up with fewer resources and can better adopt the new perspective.While
considerable research links active engagement to outcomes such as retention, understanding, and
active use of knowledge, social learning does not always foster true learning (Perkins, 1999). High
achievers fear not getting sufficient help from group members, having lower grades because of
lesser contributions of others, and not being liked by the group. On the other hand, low achievers
may let others do all the work, perhaps causing high achievers over time to prefer to work alone
(Walker, 2011). Students that find themselves contributing more than others may also respond by
contributing less (Dolmans, 2001). Negative informal comments made by a group member,
though subtle, can shape the attitudes and perceptions of others in the group and lead to lower task
performance (Walker, 2011). Educators and students alike can be frustrated by the additional time
it takes to actively and socially arrive at the point (Perkins, 1999). Introverted students may
actually not learn as well if they fear being called upon to contribute. In these conditions
instructors should manage the four requirements for students to learn and model behavior: (1)
attention - focus on the task, (2) retention - recall information learned, (3) reproduction - put
learning into action, and (4) motivation – use of reinforcement and/or punishment (Ganis, 2009).

The discussion in this section shows that social learning may lead to increased student engagement.
However, there are definite pitfalls associated with experiential learning at the group level. In
spite of these pitfalls, we propose that experiential learning leads to student engagement and that
group activities may accelerate that level of engagement.

Hypothesis 1: Group activities increase student engagement.

Method
The participants were 88 undergraduate business management students at a medium size, regional
university in the southern United States. The sections chosen for this study were selected as a
convenience sample based on the courses currently being taught by the authors. The sections
chosen were three sections of undergraduate business classes. Students were asked to participate

11
in the study and were given minimal extra credit for their participation. Female participants
consisted of 50.0% and 21.6% were minority.

Measures
The relationship being studied is the link between group activities in the class and student
engagement. Engagement consists of four factors (emotional engagement, physical engagement,
cognitive engagement in class, and cognitive engagement out of class). Control variables (gender,
race/ethnicity, grade point average, highest level of education expected, highest level of parent
education, fraternity/sorority member, college athlete, and prior military service) were collected
in conjunction with the engagement survey. The dependent variable, group activities, was
measured by having students respond to the number of times a group activity was used in the
course.

Engagement – The Burch Engagement Scale for Students (BESS) (Burch et al., 2014) was used to
measure emotional engagement, physical engagement, cognitive engagement in class, and
cognitive engagement out of class. Scale items are five level Likert scale questions using anchor
words “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” There are three questions for each of the four
engagement dimensions (physical, emotional, cognitive – in class, and cognitive – out of class).
Previous Cronbach alpha reliabilities for each of the subscales have ranged from .87 to .96.

Group Activities– The number of group activities was collected by asking students to respond to
the number of group discussions, group projects, and group work that they had experienced in the
class up to that point in the semester. Students could choose from the options 0 times, 1 time, 2
times, 3 times, or 4 or more times.

Results
We used SPSS Statistics 21 to calculate descriptive statistics and Pearson Product Moment
Correlations between all four student engagement factors and group activities. Descriptive
statistics and correlations are presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1

Pearson Product Moment Correlations

Variable Mean SD Group Group Group Emotion Physical Cognitive
Disc Project Work in class
Group 2.60 1.69
Discussion
Group 0.93 1.47 .08
Project
Group 1.89 1.57 .33** .49**
Work
Emotional 3.96 .83 .06 .27* .21*
Physical 4.00 .75 .23* .10 .20 .39**

12
 Cognitive in 4.01 .85 .16 .19 .17 .62** .47**
class
Cognitive 3.73 1.00 .17 .17 .25* .64** .50** .53**
out of class
* p significant at .05 or less
** p significant at .01 or less

Cronbach alpha reliabilities were above the acceptable threshold (.70) for each engagement factor:
emotional (.75), physical (.83), cognitive in class (.88), and cognitive out of class (.92).

Discussion & Consideration

Student engagement is an important aspect of the new AASCB Standards, specifically Standard
13 (AASCB, 2013) which states that students give the appropriate attention and dedication to the
learning materials and maintain their engagement with these materials even when challenged by
difficult learning activities. Therefore, colleges of business should strive to create environments
where the student will be engaged (Lewis, 2013). As stated earlier, we tested the relationship
between group activities (group discussion, group projects, and group work) and student
engagement (emotional, physical, cognitive in class, and cognitive out of class).

Group Discussion Drives Physical Engagement

Our results demonstrated group discussion was positively correlated with all types of student
engagement but had the largest impact on students’ physical engagement. Group discussion causes
students to put more energy into a class, but does not necessarily increase cognitive engagement.
We recognized that simply adding group discussions to a class does not necessarily cause students
to think more. Instructors need to develop group discussions with theories of student engagement
in mind in order to improve cognitive in class engagement as well as cognitive out of class
engagement. Likewise, if students perceive group discussion as interesting, meaningful, and
relevant, it will likely increase their emotional engagement. Our study showed a weak relationship
between group discussion and emotional engagement, but a strong relationship between emotional
engagement and both cognitive in class engagement and cognitive out of class engagement. It
appears as though getting students emotionally involved is paramount to getting them to think.

Group Projects Drive Emotional Engagement

Group projects were also positively correlated with the four types of student engagement but drove
emotional engagement the most. One reason we believe students were more emotionally engaged
with group projects than group discussions may be explained by the common fear of public
speaking. Groups of three to seven were established for both group discussions and group projects
for the classes surveyed. Group discussions were at times completed within the safe confines of
the group but oftentimes required one member to report group findings to the class. Group
projects, on the other hand, required all group members to participate in the group’s presentation.
Another reason students may have been more emotionally engaged with group projects than with

13
group discussions may be due to the relative importance of each to the overall class grade. Group
discussions were either tied to a daily grade worth minimal points or simply part of the learning
process with no grade tied to them. Group projects, however, were a major component of the class
grade. We feel that activities that count the most toward the overall class grade tend to increase a
student’s buy-in and therefore their emotional engagement. Students were less physically engaged
with group projects than they were with group discussions. Although group projects are more
hands on, which should increase physical engagement, we believe the weaker positive relationship
is attributable to the load being shared amongst the group members. We believe expanding the
scope of future group projects or reducing group sizes in future classes will cause physical
engagement to increase. Instructors should design group projects with emotional engagement,
physical engagement, cognitive in class engagement, and cognitive out of class engagement in
mind.

Group Work Perceived as Generic Term

Although group work was intended to be a separate category of our study, it appears the students
perceived “group work” as a generic term. Our failure to be more specific is a weakness of our
study. For purposes of this study, group work will be defined as any social learning, combining
group discussions, group projects, and any other group-related activity. Group work was
positively related to all four types of student engagement. Group work had the most profound
effect on cognitive out of class engagement and emotional engagement. Although group
discussions and group projects individually were not significantly positively correlated to
cognitive out of class engagement, group work – perceived by students to be anything
accomplished as a part of a group, including group discussions and group projects - was. These
results indicate that having variety in class helps drive engagement and supports previous research
that encourages educators to increase class variety (Gardner, 1985).

Method Improvements

This survey was distributed to 88 students. For future studies, we recommend surveying more
respondents in order to more clearly identify the relationship between group activities (group
discussion, group projects, and group work) and student engagement (emotional, physical,
cognitive in class, and cognitive out of class). We recommend administering the survey to a
lecture-based course in order to include a baseline on students’ level of engagement of a lecture
only course. In addition, future research should clarify the definition of “group work” so students
can be more accurate in reporting the amount and type of group activities they were involved with.
More precise data may be acquired by asking professors to take detailed attendance of the various
types of group activities (group discussions, group work, group projects, etc…) to ensure student
data is accurate. A final consideration is to try to link class activities to engagement and
engagement to grade performance, by collecting student grades.

Summary of Discussion Section

Our research revealed that group discussions drives physical engagement, group projects drive
emotional engagement, and that having a variety of group work drives cognitive out of class
engagement in addition to emotional engagement. We feel strongly that a larger study, with an

14
accurate reporting of type and quantity of group activities designed to stimulate all four types of
student engagement, would yield even stronger results in support of incorporating more
purposefully designed group activities into the classroom. Considering how we expect grades to
affect the emotional component of engagement, care should be taken in not only how group work
relates to the overall grade, but also in how it is assessed. It is beneficial for student groups to
attempt to tackle social loafers on their own, but instructors need to prompt them to do so, guide
them on how to, and be ready to take action if social loafing cannot be corrected by the group. We
also recognize the truth of the old saying about how one can lead a horse to water, but can’t make
it drink. Engagement is largely a matter of behavior on the part of students (Axelson & Flick,
2011), and as hard as educators try to create the perfect learning experience, it may not be possible
to get all of the horses to “drink.” However, as educators, our goal is to provide as many watering
holes, with the best water, to ensure that every horse has a chance to obtain water, if they so choose.

Conclusion
Our research empirically demonstrated a positive relationship between group experiential learning
activities and student engagement. However, not all of the correlations were significant at the .05
level based on our survey of 88 students, and were lower than first expected. It appears as if simply
adding experiential learning exercises to our classes may not be the engagement panacea that many
had hoped for. Engagement therefore seems to be a much more complex construct where students
decide where they will devote their cognitive, emotional, and physical energies. However, this
claim should not be used by educators to abdicate their responsibility to attempt to design and
deliver curriculum that will engage students.

We do believe that our research further supports the use of Social Learning Theory as an excellent
tool to facilitate classroom engagement. Through this process of social learning, individuals in a
group setting observe others in the same group, noting specifically how they act and the resultant
consequences associated with it, and then modify their own individual behavior, thus increasing
their own level of engagement. Social learning activities such as group discussion, group projects,
and group work does positively affect the four dimensions of student engagement differently.
Educators can therefore use the results of this research to determine how to deliver instruction in
a manner that increases the students’ comfort level, and where classroom expectations are
communicated fairly and clearly.

References

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) (2013). Eligibility procedures and
accreditation standards for business accreditation. Retrieved from
http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards/2013-
business/Academic%20and%20Professional%20Engagement%20Standards/standard13.aspx

Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing student from dropping out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of
College Student Development, (40)5, 518-529.

15
Axelson, R. D., & Flick, A. (2011). Defining student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher
Learning, 43(1), 38-43.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological

Review 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Burch, G. F., Heller, N. A., & Freed, R. (2014). Back to the basics: Developing a student engagement
survey to evaluate the role of experiential learning on student engagement. Developments in
Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 41, 204-214.

Burke, L. A. & Moore, J. E. (2003). A perennial dilemma in OB education: Engaging the traditional
student. Academy of Management Learning and Education, (2)1, 37-52.

Dolmans, D. W. (2001). Solving problems with group work in problem-based learning; hold on to the
philosophy. Medical Education, 35(9), 884-889.

Friedlander, J. & MacDougall, P. (1992). Achieving student success through student involvement.
Community College Review, (20)1, 20-28.

Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic books.

Hoover, J.D. (1974). Experiential learning: Conceptualization and definition. Developments in Business
Simulation and Experiential Learning 1(1974), 31-35.

Hoover, J.D. & Whitehead, C.J. (1975). An experiential-cognitive methodology in the first course in
management: Some preliminary results. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential
Learning 2(1975), 25-30.

Hu, S. & Wolniak, G. (2010). Initial evidence on the influence of college student engagement on early
career earnings. Research in Higher Education, 51(8), 750-766.

Itin, C.M. (1999). Reasserting the philosophy of experiential education as a vehicle for change in the 21st
century. The Journal of Experiential Education 22(2), 91-98.

Kolb, A. Y.& Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in
higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4, 193-212.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change: The Magazine
Of Higher Learning, (35)2, 24-31.doi: 10.2307/40177261

Lund Dean, K., & Jolly J. P. (2012). Student identity, disengagement, and learning. Academy of
Management Learning and Education, (11)2, 228-243.

Loo, R. (2002). A meta-analytic examination of Kolb’s learning style preferences among business majors.
Journal of Education for Business, 77(5), 252-256.

16
McCarthy, P.R. & McCarthy, H.M. (2006). When case studies are not enough: Integrating experiential
learning into business curricula. Journal of Education for Business, 81(4), 201-204.

Moon, J. (2004). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice. (p. 126).
London, UK:Routledge Falmer.

Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 6-11.

Pfeiffer, W. & Jones, J.E. (1975). A handbook of structured experiences for human relations training
Vols. 1-5. La Jolla, CA: University Associates.

Walker, C. S. (2011). A theoretical context for examining students' preferences across ability levels for
learning alone or in groups. High Ability Studies, 22(1), 119-141.

Wolfe, D.E. & Byrne, E.T. (1975). Research on experiential learning: Enhancing the process. Business
Games and Experiential Learning in Action, 2, 325-336.

Zimmerman, T., Schmidt, L., Becker, J., Peterson, J., Nyland, R., & Surdick, R. (2014). Narrowing the
gap between students and instructors: A study of expectations. Transformative Dialogues:
Teaching & Learning Journal, 7(1), 1-18.

17
Copyright of Academy of Business Research Journal is the property of Academy of Business
Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.