Discursive constructions of engagement in higher

educationDr Ann Luzeckyj

Centre for University Teaching

Overview

Consider Foucault's three criteria of discourse:

formation;

transformation; and,

correlation

to respond to the question :

“How is the term ‘student engagement’ constructed in university settings?”

Which leads to a related question:

How does this discursive construction of ‘student engagement’ shape the teaching and learning experiences of educators and students in universities?

Analytic tools from Foucault

Three criteria of discourse: Formation: all objects, operations, concepts and theoretical options are collected together

Transformation: includes the identification of a moment in time the discourse was formed, the way it has been modified and reformed

Correlation: the discourse is defined in relation to other discourses and within non-discursive contexts (1991b)

Normalisation (1991b)

Conditions (1991a, 1991c, 1998)

Constructions of engagement

‘negotiated engagement’ … ‘new realities of the student experience largely concern the change in priority students now give to their time at university’ (McInnis 2003, p 3)

Constructions of engagement

‘the amount of time and effort students‘ contribute plus how institutions use ‘resources and organize the curriculum and other learning opportunities to’ encourage student participation ‘in activities that decades of research studies show are linked to student learning’ (NSSE 2012)

Measuring engagement

The Student Engagement Questionnaire includes what it refers to as six measurable ‘engagement scales’. These are:

Active Learning;

Academic Challenge;

Student and Staff Interactions;

Enriching Educational Experiences;

Supportive Learning Environment; and,

Work Integrated Learning(Australian Council for Educational Research 2010, p 2)

Normalising engagement

AUSSE - Australian Survey of Student Engagement

(Australian Council for Educational Research 2011, p 2)

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

No. of

institutions25 29 36 54 41

Constructions of engagement

‘encompasses academic as well as selected non-academic and social aspects of the student experience’ (Krause & Coates 2008, p 493)

Constructions of engagement

‘dynamic interaction between a student and their learning environment’; ‘empowerment’ (Bovill, Bully & Morse 2011, p 198)

What is ‘student engagement’?

These words are from the literature

(student) involvement

social aspects of the student experience

student experience

student participation

student attendance

teacher / student collaboration

teacher / student interaction

active (learning)

(students are) academically challenged

ReferencesAustralian Council for Educational Research. (2010). Doing more for learning: Enhancing engagement and outcomes. Australasian Survey of Student Engagement, Australasian Student Engagement Report, AUSSE Available from http://ausse.acer.edu.au/images/docs/AUSSE_2009_Student_Engagement_Report.pdf

Australian Council for Educational Research. (2011). Australasia University Executive Summary Report Available from http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/aussereports/AUSSE_2011-Australasia-University-Executive-Summary.pdf

Beer, C., Clark, K., & Jones, D. (2010). Indicators of engagement. Paper presented at the ascilite: curriculum, technology & transformation for an unknown future. Retrieved from http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Beer-full.pdf

Department of Education and Training. (2002). Productive Pedagogies. from http://education.qld.gov.au/public_media/reports/curriculum-framework/productive-pedagogies/html/about.html

Foucault, M. (1991a). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality, with two lectures and an interview with Michel Foucault (pp. 87-105). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Foucault, M. (1991b). Politics and the study of discourse. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality, with two lectures and an interview with Michel Foucault (pp. 53-72). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Foucault, M. (1991c). Truth and power. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 51-75). London: Penguin.

Foucault, M. (1998). The will to knowledge: the history of sexuality Volume 1 (R. Hurley, Trans.). London: Penguin.

Foucault, M. (2002). The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Hagel, P., Carr, R., & Devlin, M. (2011). Conceptualising and measuring student engagement through the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE): a critique. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(4), 475-486.

Kift, S. (2009). A transition pedagogy for first year curriculum design and renewal (Power point slides). Paper presented at the ALTC FYE Curriculum Design Symposium. Retrieved from http://www.fyecd2009.qut.edu.au/resources/PRE_SallyKift_5Feb09.pdf

Krause, K.-L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students' engagement in first-year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493-505.

McInnis, C. (2001). Signs of disengagement? The changing undergraduate experience in Australian universities (pp. 1- 15). Melbourne: University of Melbourne.

McInnis, C. (2003). New realities of the student experience: How should universities respond? Paper presented at the 25th Annual conference European Association for Institutional Research, University of Limerick, Ireland.

National Survey of Student Engagement - About NSSE. (2012). Retrieved 10 November, 2012, from http://nsse.iub.edu/html/about.cfm

Trowler, V., & Trowler, P. (2010). Student Engagement Evidence Summary. Lancaster: University of Lancaster.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.