Student engagement in the post-Soviet university: the current state and prospects in post-Soviet countries - Azerbaijan and Estonia

This study arose from the necessity to explore student engagement with in-class and out-of-class activities in post-Soviet countries. Student engagement is one of the most widely researched areas in education, particularly in the developed and English-speaking parts of the world. However, in contrast, its conceptualization and measurement have not been addressed in the countries of the former Soviet Union. Student engagement has been a topic of scholarly debate for many years and is recognized as a proxy for the quality of education. Although there is debate that it has not been theorized enough, many authors have defined student engagement.

The present study is designed to investigate the state of student engagement with in-class and out-of-class activities and find ways to improve student learning experiences in post-Soviet countries. The worldview for this study is dialectic pluralism, a metaparadigm allowing one to see a larger picture, which provides a basis to look further than is possible with empiricism alone, explore individual perspectives, and investigate different paradigms and theories using multiple research methods.

The study is an amalgam of three independent original studies showcasing two different post-Soviet countries—Azerbaijan and Estonia. Study I explored the linkages between student activities, institutional variables, and student outcomes in higher education (HE) in Azerbaijan through bivariate correlation and regression analysis of 266 students from five universities located in the capital city. Study II explored variations of student engagement across eight universities (N = 433) and disciplines, as well as students’ perspectives on improving their educational experiences. Finally, in Study III Estonian students (N = 27) were interviewed. The study explored how student engagement in out-of-class activities, namely, the quality assurance process in one Estonian university, will likely improve if university–student dialog is facilitated.

Study I revealed that student success, identified in terms of GPA, is related to the quality of interactions they have with academic and non-academic staff; a supportive environment predicts perceived gains and student satisfaction. However, in contrast, it also revealed that collaborative learning negatively impacts students’ GPAs. Along with this, students’ engagement with academic learning was largely predicted by student–faculty interactions. The study revealed that the campus environment and student–faculty interactions are critical elements of student learning, success, and satisfaction.

Another key finding came from Study II, which revealed that student engagement varies across universities and disciplines; although there are no fundamental differences across the universities located in the capital city and the regions or universities of a particular size, collaborative learning is better established in two universities located in the capital in comparison to many other universities. Surprisingly, the study revealed that student–faculty interactions at regional universities are generally better than at the universities in the capital. Students from science disciplines seemed to be more dissatisfied with the conditions created at the universities than their counterparts from other fields. Finally, students perceived higher education in Azerbaijan as weak, requiring essential changes focusing on improving the quality of teachers, teaching, and the curriculum.

Study III, conducted at a university in Estonia, revealed that students are eager to participate in in-class and out-of-class activities, such as an internal quality assurance process, if they know the expectations and responsibilities. The study exposed that students are likely to build a dialog in solving the issues related to their studies. Students would eagerly receive early information about the university development plan to provide feedback and build collaboration. Data analysis also generated a set of preconditions for universities to improve their student engagement in quality assurance.

This research contributes to the knowledge of student engagement by bringing in how student engagement is constructed and implemented in HE in post-Soviet countries, where student engagement as a phenomenon has yet to be conceptualized. The study adds value by uncovering different aspects of student engagement in a new context. Nevertheless, the theorization of student engagement in a different context could be a new study to explore in the future for other researchers.