Critical perspectives on student engagement
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•94 views
This document summarizes research on student engagement. It discusses popular definitions of engagement, methodological issues in engagement research, and critiques of how engagement is conceptualized and measured. A key finding is that most variation in student engagement occurs at the individual level, rather than between institutions or disciplines. The document concludes by calling for a broader conception of engagement and encouraging practices that challenge students and foster knowledge transfer through varied teaching strategies.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Critical perspectives on student engagement
Similar to Critical perspectives on student engagement (20)
More from Christian Bokhove
More from Christian Bokhove (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Critical perspectives on student engagement
- 1. CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON STUDENT ENGAGEMENT Dr. Christian Bokhove University of Southampton June 4th 2019
- 2. Student engagement is popular • Teaching Excellence Framework • ‘Value for money’ • Engagement → Achievement • Higher Education Academy (Now Advance HE) Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48490572
- 3. Definitions of student engagement Fredricks et al (2004) • Behavioural • Psychological • Socio-cultural Kahu (2013) • Affect (interest, enthusiasm and belonging) • Cognition (deep learning, self-regulation) • Behaviour (time and effort, interaction, participation)
- 4. Methodological issues • Conflating satisfaction and engagement • Often not longitudinal data • Self-report versus what actual happens in the session rooms • Causation/correlation: bidirectional relationship engagement and achievement • Institutional focus – individual focus: can we reliably compare? • Measurement eg attendance = engagement?
- 5. Critiques: engagement-as- MacFarlane and Tomlinson (2017) • Performativity (targets, indicators, attendance, effort, ‘tyranny of participation) • Marketing (marketisation of HE, bronze/silver/gold, consumerism, OfS) • Infantilisation (compulsory attendance, concern emotional well-being)
- 6. Critiques: engagement-as- MacFarlane and Tomlinson (2017) • Surveillance (eg learning analytics) • Gamification (fun, emotional performativity) • Opposition (activism, outside institutional boundaries)
- 7. Can we reliably compare? Bokhove and Muijs (2019) • United Kingdom Engagement Survey (UKES) • Data from 2014 and 2015, almost 25,000 students • Multilevel models • Variance overwhelmingly at individual level https://youtu.be/PXXMZmJF0JU
- 8. What would that mean? • Universities differ far less than we think • Disciplines differ far less than we think • Individual characteristics and variables mainly determine levels of engagement • Part-time/fulltime • Special needs • Age • Gender • Etc…
- 9. What could we do? • Broader conception of ‘student engagement’ • Knowledge and skills transfer • Abstract literature and practical cases, mix of teaching strategies • Challenge • Constantly in a healthy tension • Engagement ↔ Achievement
- 10. Thank you • Questions and/or discussion • @cbokhove • C.Bokhove@soton.ac.uk • Associate Professor at University of Southampton • Maths education • Technology use • Research methods • Large-scale assessment
Editor's Notes
- Overview what are they? What comparisons are there? PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS, TALIS, ICCS, ICIL, TALIS, PIAAC and many more. Industry? Details design and assessment items? Strengths and weaknesses? introducing participants to the concepts but in particular asking them to think critically about this area and helping them come up with a balanced viewpoint. Things like - what sort of questions should they be asking to dig below the headlines?