If I’m such a great teacher, why don’t my students engage with the ethical issues facing the profession? Case Study from Fashion and Textiles
Jane Mills, Senior Lecturer in Fashion, FAST, UoN
“When we tell learners to complete an assignment, we get compliance, when we empower learners to investigate how to make an impact upon the world, we inspire problem-solvers and innovators.” (Katie Martin, 2019)
Statement of the problem
On the face of it you would think that the moral and ethical issues associated with the fashion and textile industries would be a source of intense interest and even outrage for the current generation of Fashion students, not least because of the increasing media coverage, and the instant and easy access to information that they enjoy. Given the fact that social awareness / responsibility and global-citizenship are often cited as key-characteristics of Generation-Z, it perhaps isn’t unreasonable to expect that students would willingly embrace the opportunity to investigate the issues with some level of enthusiasm, if not passion?
However, the reality is that most will only demonstrate the briefest consideration for what can be argued to be the most important issues facing the relevant industries, and which will undoubtedly shape the future of fashion and textiles.
Aside from these issues being very ‘on-trend’, and additionally in line with the University’s vision that our learners are “competent, resourceful and ethical problem solvers”, Fashion students are required in several modules to demonstrate a consideration of the associated issues that would arise from the choices they make in regard to their designs. While each year certain students will demonstrate an in-depth interest of a specific issue, even to the point of basing their final-year project on that issue, in practice the greater majority of our students will provide only the briefest of consideration.Typically, this is often limited to vague claims that they will use ‘sustainable fabrics’ in their designs, without any clarity or specificity as to what they actually mean by ‘sustainable’.
In reality, being able to demonstrate a grounded and in-depth understanding of these real-world imperatives will increasingly be an important and a distinguishing factor for Fashion graduates as they pursue their careers in the industry.
The challenge that I elected to explore in this module was how I could motivate my students to seriously consider these issues, and to recognise that as consumers they are both contributors to the social, ethical and moral problems created by the fashion industry, and importantly to recognise that as designers they are the solution to these issues? I very much want to encourage them in the adoption of new-thinking, and to empower them ‘to be the change’.
Of course, that is considerably easier to say than it is to achieve. In a world where 44% of Gen-Z’ers say that being “vegan is cooler than smoking” (Chiorando, 2018, p.1), and where in a recent study 26% have shunned companies that don’t appear to align with their own values of compassion and empathy, and 37% have either ‘volunteered’ or ‘donated’ to causes that they care or feel passionate about (Patel, 2017), the requirement for our students to consider moral and ethical issues in their designs should reasonably be expected to be both ‘on topic’ and consequently engaging for our students. In practice, it appears to hardly flicker let alone light a fire.
Our Fashion course attracts a very diverse range of students, and there could certainly be some element of cultural / religious influence behind some student’s poor engagement with moral and ethical issues. If this is the case then it certainly isn’t easily identifiable. This apparent lack of engagement with the issues crosses the full spectrum of our students regardless of background or ability. Of course, I realise that there could be many contributing factors for this and recognise that consideration should also be given to both the design and content of the relevant modules and of course the teaching, i.e. – Is there sufficient coverage of the issues? Do students have sufficient time to learn about and consider the issues? Are students being encouraged to be strategic in their response to the learning outcomes? Is the enormity of the issues such that it defeats all but the most confident learners? Is the teaching simply inadequate? Or, as many colleagues will often claim, is the problem ‘this generation of students’?
How to engage the current generation of students is a question far bigger than this study and is already well recognised as a major challenge for Higher Education. Colleagues from across the sector report increasing problems with the engagement of both domestic and international students, typified by poor attendance to lectures, distraction within the class room, and a general lack of engagement with anything other than assessed tasks. They also cite what they perceive to be a significant issue whereby students appear to be constantly distracted by their smart phones in class. Noticeably, these issues will typically be reported as ‘this generation of students’ being either at fault or lacking. While the complaints about smartphone distraction may be new, it seems to me that many of these reported problems would have been made about many previous generations of students.
While much has been written about student engagement / motivation, and the distraction of technology, it wouldn’t be that great a surprise to find that academics can be highly selective with regard to studies that confirm their views rather than those that encourage an alternative insight. That said, I am however aware that there are some very unique challenges that arise when seeking to engage Generation-Z students and have written about this in previous papers. In reality, they represent a continuation of a revolution that emerged in the early 2000s with the arrival of Generation Y students at university. It was because of the very different and unique learning characteristics, behaviours and expectations of those students that the term ‘student engagement’ first gained traction (Gibbs, 2014).
In previous research, I have investigated a number of approaches and strategies that have shown promise in the teaching and engagement of Generation-Z students, and have started to incorporate these within my own teaching practice. While it is far too early to reach any reliable conclusions, I believe the incorporation of learning communities within the cohort is likely to produce a significant improvement in student engagement, particularly in the non-creative aspects of their studies. While the demonstration of ethical and moral consideration is a requirement in certain fashion modules, the response to this requirement by many students is simply inadequate. Not least because these considerations form a key and critical foundation that should inform the designs that students submit. A weak response to these requirements seriously undermines the credibility of the student’s concepts, and consequently the grade that they achieve for the respective module, and arguably their progress. In fairness our Fashion students didn’t sign-up for a course in moral and ethical studies, it is none-the-less an aspect that will be of increasing importance to both their studies and their career. Interestingly, there is an apparent disconnect between what can be an enthusiastic response to the issues by students while in the class room, and the evident lack of consideration that emerges in the students submitted work. This, in its self raises questions for me about what we, as teachers, actually mean by ‘engagement’, what actually constitutes engagement, how can we measure it, and what do we expect it to actually deliver?
From a theoretical point of view, if I have two students, one who is enthusiastic and seemingly engaged in the subject within the class, has an excellent attendance record, submits their work on time and would be generally regarded as an ideal student, but shows no actual interest in the issues outside the class.
The second student, lacks consistency in their work, has a patchy attendance record, is always late in submitting their work, and would typically be regarded as a poor performing student, but who is an active participant in a movement that has moral and ethical issues at its heart. The time that the student devotes to this cause is the key reason for their seemingly poor performance in the class. Which is the genuinely engaged student?
While, as a tutor I am likely to feel validated by the first student, and frustrated by the second student, am I actually missing something really important? If students engage in the issues with some level of enthusiasm in the classroom, why are they then not either empowered or motivated to investigate the subject in-depth? A conundrum that seemed to be a good starting point for my dive in to relevant literature.
Review of literature
The work of Block (1987) is regarded as seminal in the popularisation of the understanding, philosophy and practice of empowerment (Frymier et al., 1996), and the later work of Thomas and Velthouse (1990) serves as the basis for much of the literature that has subsequently expanded the understanding of empowerment and motivation. In their 1990 study, empowerment was defined by Thomas and Velthouse as having four dimensions; Meaningfulness, Competence, Impact, and Choice.
In terms of Meaningfulness, a person is unlikely to be motivated to, or even be willing to, produce high-quality work if they do not understand that it will be useful either now or at a later date.
For Competence to be present, a person needs to feel suitably qualified and have sufficient self-confidence in their skills and abilities to be able to undertake and successfully complete a task, such that they are neither intimidated nor feel unable to undertake the work.
Work that a person believes will actually make a difference is likely to be regarded as having real value and consequently be Impactful, leading them to feel internally motivated.
The amount of Choice a person has in determining the work that they undertake, including setting tasks, methods and goals, contributes significantly to how empowered they will feel.
While the work of Thomas and Velthouse focussed on adults working within various organisations, it is generally accepted that there is much that education can learn from the application of motivational techniques that have been developed and extensively used in other arenas. Glasser (1990) and Frymier et al. (1996) believe that because motivation forms the foundation for all definitions of empowerment, it is as equally applicable to the student-teacher relationship as it is to the manager-employee relationship.
Thomas and Velthouse set-out a precise definition of ‘intrinsic task motivation’ when referring to the “positively valued experiences that individuals derive directly from a task” (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990, p. 668). In reference to Warr, Cooke & Wall, (1979), Frymier et al. (1996) define intrinsic job motivation as “the degree that a person wants to work well in his or her job in order to achieve intrinsic satisfaction”, further stating a belief “that this definition applies to the job of students – which is to achieve quality learning” (Frymier et al., 1996, p.184). They further characterise empowerment as “more than just intrinsic motivation”, stating that “it also includes a cognitive belief state of personal involvement and self-efficacy, which refers to the degree to which members of an organisation [or class] are willing and capable to engage in work [learning]” (Frymier et al., 1996, p.184).
In recognition that aside being able to award good grades there are in reality very few extrinsic rewards that teachers can use to encourage students to feel intrinsically motivated, Frymier et al. (1996) refer to this as an “intrinsic motivation paradigm”. At the time of their research, an established and reliable method of being able to measure empowerment didn’t actually exist, and the creation of tools that could be used to provide this was central to their work.
Referencing Richmond’s (1990) motivation scale, Frymier et al. (1996) premise that “motivation to learn can be [either] a general trait of a student who is intrinsically motivated [Traits Motivation], or a situation specific state based on classroom experiences [State Motivation]”. They explain that whereas “Traits motivation refers to any inherent drive to learn the content because the student understands its’ values and enjoys learning”, “State Motivation, on the other hand, refers to student’s desire to acquire knowledge in the specific class, assignment, or content area at a particular point in time” (Frymier et al., 1996, p.184). Interestingly, of the two, State motivation has proven to be a better measure of learning (Christophel, 1990), and that “learner empowerment exhibited a significant and positive relationship with State motivation, and a near zero relationship with Trait motivation” (Frymier et al., 1996, p. 197). Further, Frymier et al. argue convincingly that “if empowerment is indeed an expanded more inclusive conceptualisation of motivation, then motivation should be highly associated with learner empowerment” (Frymier et al., 1996, p. 184).
According to Ryan and Deci (2000), to be motivated means “to be moved to do something” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p.1) and if someone feels “no impetus or inspiration” to actively do something this is “characterised as unmotivated”. In respect of motivational theory, as defined by Maslow (1954) and Herzberg (1959), Craft, (2017) simplifies these theories and examines both basic and higher-level human needs; how achievement can afford a sense of empowerment, and how this informs the distinction between motivation and empowerment.
Weimer, in a 2014 paper acknowledges that there are many “widely-used descriptors in higher education” (Weimer, 2014 p. 1) and considers in some detail the importance of empowerment to higher education, and helpfully describes an uncomplicated conversion from Thomas and Velthouses’s four-dimensions of empowerment. There is a plethora of research that confirms the importance of empowerment in educational attainment, few would disagree that empowered students learn more and in greater depth, and importantly gain greater enjoyment from the experience. Yet while Weimer agrees with this assertion, she argues powerfully that students however do not necessarily consider themselves to be ‘empowered’ and believes that they do not approach their learning from this perspective.
While some academics insist that if students receive good “coaching” then they are empowered, this argument is somewhat nullified when all students in a cohort receive the same teaching and yet some still fail to feel empowered?
Burk (1997) proposes that the uniqueness of each student requires that different approaches to teaching and learning be considered in the creation of an empowering environment. Understanding each student’s individual learning characteristics may well be an important consideration, certainly in regard to students who might be characterised as ‘less confident learners’. Reflecting Thomas and Velthouse (1990), Weimer suggests that while such students, who could also be characterised as lacking competence, may want to learn, but it is their lack of confidence that prevents them from asserting themselves. This in itself can be a barrier to empowerment.
Weimer sets out a persuasive blueprint for student empowerment, citing; clear instructions to students regarding the actions they must take in order to succeed, identifying relevant resources that are available to the students, supporting student efforts, asking students to identify the actions they need to take and in which order, and what resources they will use and where to locate them. She also emphasises the benefit of showing students how to make learning experiences out of failures, and the importance of acknowledgement and celebrating successes with students – even small ones (Weimer, 2014).
Reflecting the importance of ‘Meaningfulness’ (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990), in an article, ‘Creating and implementing authentic assignments’ where Hall (2017) reviews insights gained by Balachandran and Siddiqui, she writes that students will often question “why they need to learn something, and wonder when, if ever, they will use course information” (Hall, 2017, p.1). Hall adds that students gain from the “real-world” experience, context and hands-on learning that authentic assignments provide. This is echoed by Weimer who states “beyond teacher-student relationships, teachers can empower students by making sure the work students do is meaningful and important.” Adding that “authentic assignments empower students” (Weimer, 2014 p. 4). When considering the role of the teacher, in light of the “significant and positive relationship” between State motivation and learner empowerment, reported by Frymier et al., it is evident that learner empowerment is likely situational in nature, and that the class environment can affect it (Frymier et al. 1996, p.197). In this regard, they emphasise the importance of the teacher to the class environment. They explain the significance of the teacher’s “immediacy and relevance behaviours” to the creation of a positive relationship, within the class, to learning empowerment. In recognition of the influence that teachers have, in regard to empowerment, they encourage teachers to make full use of these behaviours.
An observed intervention was a requirement for the EDUM 127 module. In response to this I elected to organise a seminar that would be delivered to students in my area of specialism, Fashion and Textiles. I structured this as an introduction to the ethical, moral and sustainability issues that arise globally from the mass-production and marketing of fashion garments.
Across levels 4, 5 and 6, Fashion and Textiles has a cohort of some 170 students, however I am very aware of how difficult it can be to engage students in extra-curricular activities, I therefore estimated that I might reliably be able to enrol between 15 and 20 students to participate in the event.
While I considered promoting the event via the University’s VLE (Nile/ Blackboard), because of my experience of how unlikely it would be for students to actually seek-out information from this, I chose instead to make a series of personal invitations to students in both class and self-directed study sessions. These invitations and were made 2-weeks before the date of the event, and I used these as an opportunity to explain the subject and purpose of the seminar, and emphasis how important the contribution from each student would be in shaping the overall experience and outcomes of the seminar. I further reminded students about the date, time and venue for the seminar during normal class sessions prior to the date of the event.
I planned for the seminar to have a duration of 2-hours, and for it to be held at a time that would not conflict with student’s taught time. Because I wanted to be able to include both audio and video elements in the event, I arranged for the use of a suitable room within the University as a venue. Much of the teaching space in the University’s new campus is open-plan and informal and was concerned that this might lead to the participants being distracted, I therefore selected a room that would provide a contained space. Additionally, because I wanted the participants to engage in group discussion I made sure that the furniture in the room could be configured to facilitate up to 4 groups seated at tables.
I designed the seminar to be an introduction, enquiry and discussion in to the issues. To facilitate this, I structured the seminar to enable key information to be introduced in stages throughout the event, such that it would support and enable discussion between the participants about specific aspects before moving on to each subsequent stage. I incorporated the opportunity for both group and individual contribution. The intention was not to disempower the attendees through the sheer enormity of the issues, but to encourage them to consider achievable, practical and deliverable actions that would be within their abilities. Importantly, I included space for them to think creatively and without restriction. I planned and prepared imagery, audio and video media to support and inform the session, including excerpts from film and TV documentaries. This media was used to introduce and highlight both the enormity of the issue, and to illustrate key facts.
On the day, 18 students and the observer for the session attended. The participants were free to choose where they sat in the room, this led to the freeform creation of the groups within the seminar. I commenced the seminar by first welcoming the students, and thanking them for their attendance. I reminded them that the event was to be observed and introduced the colleague, who had agreed to be the observer. I then explained how the seminar would proceed, and I confirmed the time that we would conclude the event. I then spoke for approximately 5-minutes to introduce the subject of the seminar, and then proceeded to follow the plan that I had devised for the session. The first stage started with a video, featuring an internationally recognised fashion vlogger providing an overview of the sustainability issues from a consumer perspective, and providing key facts and data. The participants were then asked to discuss within their groups the information presented, and to consider the issues and possible solutions from their own perspective as consumers. These thoughts and ideas were then shared by individuals, and each contribution was recorded on a white-board. Each contribution was acknowledged.
The first-stage was then concluded with further videos that provided information of successful actions and initiatives that consumers had taken to address the issues. The second-stage, which then looked at the moral and ethical issues, followed the format of the first-stage, with participants engaging in group discussions and individual contributions. The third-stage asked the participants to then consider and discuss the issues from the perspective of a fashion and textiles professional. As with the first two stages each individual’s contribution was recorded. The forth-stage then provided the opportunity for an open discussion between all of the participants and included a refresh of the issues and a review of the contributions, and the capturing of any insights. The fifth-stage provided the opportunity for the participants to offer comments on their experience of the event, and to declare any actions that they felt empowered to make in regard to the issues raised. To encourage this, I made the first declaration. I then concluded the seminar with a brief summarisation of what had been covered during the event, citing the key points that had been provided by the individual contributions. I then thanked the students for their participation and closed the event.
While in this paper I have focussed on the challenge of motivating my students to consider seriously the global social, moral and ethical issues created by the fashion and textile industries, it has become clear to me that this focus is of course a proxy for the wider issues of student engagement, motivation and empowerment. As covered, earlier in this document, it is notable that the requirement for students to consider the issues arising from the mass-manufacture and mass-marketing of fashion-products seems to highlight the degree to which students are actually engaged with the subject. While I have been aware of this polarisation of engagement for some time, through the quality and depth of consideration apparent in the work that students submit, I haven’t specifically looked at the issue in isolation or in any depth, and my previous thinking has been typically informed by anecdotal evidence.
I saw the intervention element of the EDUM 127 module as an opportunity to take a closer look at the dynamics behind this issue of engagement. I expressly wanted my role in the intervention to be that of facilitator and guide, rather than teacher, as I wanted to be free to observe the students creating their own participation rather than either looking to me as their instructor or feeling resistance to being taught. While this would accord with Frymier et al.’s characterisation of empowerment, in that it was intended to encourage self-efficacy, I believed that this approach would perhaps provide an insight in to Thomas and Velthouse’s Four-Dimensions, in particular regard to meaningfulness, competence and choice? I incorporated within the design for the session a number of the strategies and techniques that I have found to work well in the facilitation of creative discussion environments. I chose the format of a seminar for the intervention because I wanted to facilitate the creation of a space in which the attendees were both encouraged to freely participate in a guided discussion, and able to express their individual thoughts and ideas.
I selected a venue that would ensure that the participants would be able to focus on the subject of the seminar without outside distractions, and I ensured that the facilities within the room would fully support the structure and content of the seminar. Reflecting the importance of meaningfulness (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990), to make the experience as authentic as I could (Hall, 2017; Weimer, 2014), I made extensive use of video content from sources that the students would likely relate to and respect. My rational in this regard was to maximise relevance and to minimise any ‘being taught’ preconceptions that the students would have in respect of the communication of the issues covered, and to ensure that the subject spoke in to the students’ listening.
The seminar was structured to ensure that the issues covered were accessible to the participants, and that each stage included space for discussion and interaction that would enable the students to build confidence in their participation. In reflection of Craft’s, (2017) assertion that achievement can afford a sense of empowerment, I specifically included a strategy for each participants’ individual contributions to be valued by being both recorded on a white-board and acknowledged during the session. This broadly aligned with Thomas and Velthouse, (1990), whereby positively valued experiences support intrinsic task motivation, and reflected the emphasis Weimer, (2014) places on acknowledgement. To demonstrate respect for the time that the participants made available to attend the event, I acknowledged their participation and thanked them for their contributions.
The seminar was timed to start at midday on a Tuesday, and I was pleased to see that all of the attendees arrived promptly. In total, there were 18 students from across the three specialisms of; Fashion, Fashion Marketing, and Textiles, and included levels 4, 5 and 6. Upon entering the room, the students self-selected where they would sit. While some sat with friends, several chose to sit with others. The Observer explained that he initially had concerns that the freedom to sit where they chose might prevent or stifle a multidisciplinary voice within the group discussions. These concerns were however alleviated because the groups were actually constituted by at least two disciplines, enabling the Observer to note that there was “an appropriate mix of students from different disciplines/course and levels”. He further added that “the size of the groups accorded well with the recommendations made in literature”.
The video content was well received by the students and proved to be an effective method of communicating the issues to the participants. I observed that, as the intensity of the content of the videos increased, and the issues became progressively more challenging, the students became visibly moved, and clearly affected. This was particularly apparent when the video covering the Rama-Plaza disaster was played. While some of the participants had heard of this tragedy, most were unaware of it. I would describe the reaction to this video was one of stunned, silent reverence. In regard to the discussion sessions, I noted that all of the participants appeared to freely engage in the conversations that took place, both within their respective groups and in the wider ‘whole-room’ conversations. It was clear that the students’ contributions, in response to the request to initially examine the issues from a consumer perspective and then as fashion professionals, were considered, relevant and distinct.
The individual contributions were respectful of others’ views, and the range of ideas and opinions that came from across the disciplines were attentively listened to. While I had some initially concerns that some students may remain quiet, as can be the case with a mix of levels, this proved not to be a factor, with all students joining in the discussion, and appearing to be able to confidently express their views. While it became apparent that some participants held very strong and pertinent views on the subject matter, in general I would characterise the group discussions as; considered, enthusiastic, energetic and sometimes animated. I found it particularly interesting that the general tone of both the group and whole-room discussions seemed to match the tone and level of seriousness of the video content. This was particularly notable in regard to the Rama-Plaza video.
It was further notable that in contrast to the apparent uniformly ‘engaged’ response during the discussions, the students’ responses, when asked if there were any actions / changes that they personally felt empowered to make in regard to the issues covered in the seminar, was very mixed. Clearly some students were already very aware of the issues and already making informed choices in their purchases; choosing to either buy fewer quality items, buy from charity shops, or recycle / upcycle garments. Among those, for whom the seminar provided a new awareness, several participants felt able to make declarations that they would “now be mindful of the issues” when making purchase decisions.
This declaration of ‘mindfulness’ was more generally expressed among the participants in regard to their studies and the approach they would take when considering their assignments. For some participants however, it was evident that in-terms of their personal purchase decisions, there was a distinct disconnect between the issues and the actions they would be willing to take. I would characterise this as either a lack of apparent interest, or lack of self-awareness. Obviously, this wasn’t a controlled study, and all of the participants were self-selected. In this respect, a mixed response could reasonably be expected, and is most likely typical of any similarly assembled group.
Following the seminar, in the debriefing conversation, the observer noted that I had “provided a welcoming atmosphere that gave the students more confidence to express their views”, and that by addressing them by their first names I had created a “friendly environment”. The observer further noted that “the topics related to a real-world fashion community, with very strong underpinning theory, and that this helped in making the session exciting for students to engage in”. He also noted that letting the students engage in the moderation worked very well, e.g. a student consolidating the ideas on the whiteboard, and participants / groups being given immediate constructive feedback from the assembled room.
So then, what did I learn from the intervention? In the first instance it provided an interesting opportunity to look more closely at how students respond to subject related issues, and the extent to which they will or won’t engage with the issues. This was helped by the seminar not being a taught / assessed element of their studies, as this offered the opportunity for the students to attend if they wished to, without obligation or requirement, and to be free to contribute as much or as little as they felt able. In this respect alone, the session served to illustrate behaviours identified in the literature that I have reviewed for this module? While the real-world subject matter can justifiably be described as being authentic (Weimer, 2014; Hall, 2017), and as having meaningfulness to the students (one of the four-dimensions of empowerment, Thomas and Velthouse, 1996), the freedom to choose to attend the seminar, and to contribute to the discussions, would appear to reflect the presence of choice (another of the four-dimensions). Further, the fact that all of the students were active contributing participants within the discussions would suggest that they felt sufficiently confident to do so, indicating a level of competence (also one of the four-dimensions).
It was very evident that the students who attended the seminar enjoyed themselves, and notable that the mix of disciplines was a significant contribution to the vibrancy and energy of the event. The varied perspectives that the mix of disciplines afforded, served to broaden and enrich the discussions. While this may be an indication that the participants demonstrated a degree of ‘intrinsic task motivation’ (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990), a key take-away for me is the potential that rich, rewarding and valuable learning experiences can provide for my students. This is underlined for me by the confirmed strong link between empowerment and motivation (Frymier et al. 1996; Glasser, 1990), and in particular the important role that motivation plays in student engagement. While it is perhaps no surprise that teachers can positively influence the creation of an environment, that both fosters and enables learning empowerment, I do not in any way underestimate the challenge that delivering this represents.
For me, while this focus of the teachers’ role is a confirmation of my personal philosophy, it is also both the stepping-off point from this module, and the sign-post for the direction of my further studies.
For colleagues who may wish also to investigate student empowerment, motivation and engagement, I would suggest that a review of the work of Frymier et al. (1996) would be a worthwhile endeavour. In particular an investigation to establish how the measurement tool covered in their 1996 paper has been subsequently developed, and to consider how this might be used within colleague’s own areas of practice.
Further, based on the premise promoted by Frymier et al. (1996, p198) “that to survive in the 21st-century students must become empowered learners”, I would also suggest consideration be given to Weimer’s (2014) recommendations, for empowered teaching in the formulation of a personal teaching philosophy.
Burke, N (1997) Using Personal Narratives as a Pedagogical Tool: Empowering Students Through Stories. Communication and Theatre Arts, Phoenix College, presented at the National Communication Association, November 1997. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED415560.pdf
Chiorando, M (2018) Plant Based News, 44% Of Generation Z Say Being Vegan Is ‘Cooler Than Smoking’ https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/44-of-generation-z-vegan-cooler-smoking
Christophel, D.M. (1990) the relationship among teacher immediacy behaviours, student motivation, and learning. Communication on Education, p. 471-482 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03634529009378813
Craft, L (2017) Motivation vs. Empowerment: Knowing the difference can increase productivity CraftMetrics International. http://www.craftmetrics.com/motivation-vs-empowerment-knowing-the-difference-can-increase-productivity/
Frymier, A Shulman, G and Houser, M (1996) The development of a leaner empowerment measure. Communication Education, Vol 45, July 1996. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248939988_The_development_of_a_learner_empowerment_measure
Glasser, W (1990) The quality school: Managing students without coercion. New York. Harper & Row https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED335729
Gibbs, G (2014) Student engagement, the latest buzzword. Times Higher Education 1 May 2014 https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/student-engagement-the-latest-buzzword/2012947.article
Hall, M (2017) Lunch and Learn: Creating and Implementing Authentic Assignments, Center for Educational Resources (CER). http://ii.library.jhu.edu/tag/authentic-assignments/
Martin, K (2019) 4 Shifts To Move From Teacher-Centered To Learner-Centered. https://katielmartin.com/2019/01/13/4-shifts-to-move-from-teacher-centered-to-learner-centered/
Patel, D (2017) Forbes, 11 Environmental Causes Gen Z Is Passionate About https://www.forbes.com/sites/deeppatel/2017/10/04/11-environmental-causes-gen-z-is-passionate-about/#3bfa18b01849
Ryan, R M and Deci, E L (2000) Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions University of Rochester, Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 54 – 67, 2000. https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0361476X99910202/1-s2.0-S0361476X99910202-main.pdf?_tid=f6938436-b27e-46a4-9104-9acff274f864&acdnat=1540993637_62475ed57caa82657cda6383d74f5c9a
Thomas, K and Velthouse, B (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An ‘interpretative” mode of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review 1990, Vol 15 No 4 666 -681 Dudley Knox Library. https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/45984/Thomas_Cognitive_Elements_1990.pdf;sequence=4
Weimer, M (2014) What’s an Empowered Student? Faculty Forums. The Teaching Professor Blog. Higher Ed Teaching Strategies Magna Publications.