Student engaging. What’s that about?

Colin Bryson, Daniel Ashall and Bethany Parker, Newcastle Universitycolin.bryson@ncl.ac.uk

Goals

A shared understanding of the nature and meaning of student engagement

Look at the research and evidence Consider how this should guide practice

and policy and an example of that in action

Students engaging

To meet regularly to discuss SE.   An early goal is to develop a concept map and set of principles that underpin the

promotion of SE To establish an annual conference drawing together leading edge work on SE - and

to feed into publication through journals and books. (Next conference– Sept 13/14th 2012, Southampton)

To gain funding to support these events and activities. To create a bank of useful resources for us to share. To facilitate communication between us (web, email network etc)

raise@jiscmail.ac.uk; http://raise-network.ning.com/

Students engaging

Conceptions of engagement – the dominant paradigm - NSSE Roots (Becker, 1961: Pace, 1979: Astin, 1977: Chickering and

Gamson, 1987: Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991, 2005)

A focus in USA on active classroom behaviours - (National Student Survey on Engagement) – George Kuh

http://nsse.iub.edu/index.cfm Survey used very widely - Over 100 publications Now revising survey into NSSE 2.0 Australia – the FYE…convergence with US thinking Coates developed NSSE into the AUSSE (and now we have SASSE

etc)

Students engaging

Students engaging

NSSE used as a proxy of quality

Student engagement is defined as students’ involvement in activities and conditions that are linked with high-quality learning. A key assumption is that learning outcomes are influenced by how much an individual participates in educationally purposeful activities. While students are seen to be responsible for constructing their own knowledge, learning is also seen to depend on institutions and staff generating conditions that stimulate student involvement.

Is that better than the NSS?

Students engaging

Australian perspectives

Focus on first year experience – big surveys in 1994, 1999, 2004 and 2009

Connectedness (McInnis, 1995) Multi-dimensional engagement (Krause

and Coates, 2008) -7 scales transition; academic; peer; staff; intellectual; online; beyond-class

Students engaging

Problems with that paradigm SE is holistic and socially constructed Every student is an individual and different (Haggis, 2004) Engagement is a concept which encompasses the perceptions,

expectations and experience of being a student and the construction of being a student in HE (Bryson and Hand, 2007).

Engagement underpins learning and is the glue that binds it together – both located in being and becoming. (Fromm, 1977)

More than about doing/behaving and quantity Method, validity and reliability issues SE is dynamic and fluid SE is multidimensional, includes student’s whole lives and it is the

interaction and pattern that matters not any specific variable – avoid reductionism

SE needs to sensitive to the local context Closed question surveys do not allow student voice

Students engaging

A different form of student evidence….my own work

Drawn from seven studies since 2003, mainly qualitative

Includes two longitudinal studies And one of these was the staff perspective

on SE Identified both levels and influences – and

the dynamic nature and fragility of engagement

Students engaging

Key influences on engagement

1. Student expectations and perceptions – match to the ‘personal project’ and interest in subject

2. Balances between challenge and appropriate workload

3. Degrees of choice, autonomy, risk, and opportunities for growth and enjoyment

4. Trust relationships 5. Communication and discourse6. A sense of belonging and community

Students engaging

A wider exploration of the lit Strong evidence base and critical

perspective from schools SE research(Fredricks et al; Zyngier; Gibbs & Posskitt; Harris)

Metaconstruct (includes emotional)

Pattern rather than variable centred

Critical take on SE

Students engaging

More perspectives

Professional formation and authentic learning (identity projects) (Holmes; Reid and Solomonides) – an ‘ontological turn’

Inclusivity (Hockings) Ways of being a student (and SOMUL)(Dubet; Brennan et al)

Students engaging

Engagement to (and for) what? Engagement to and with different levels(Bryson and Hand) Collective SE – but also participation and

partnership (Little et al: Bovill: Healey et al) Integration, belonging and community (Tinto:

Kember: Wenger and several others) Intellectual development (Perry: Baxter Magolda: Belenky)

Students engaging

The value of engagement after HE(my most recent research)

Integrated development of the whole person (and ‘disposition’) Graduateness and graduate attributes (Barrie, 2007) Graduate identity (Holmes, 2001) and USEM (Yorke and Knight,

2006) The whole HE experience – thus the

extracurricular is vital – authentic experiences The engaged student tends to take up more

opportunities AND is better able to join them up in their thinking

Students engaging

The flipside of SE Alienation, inertia/anomie and

disengagement (Mann: Krause) Performativity Being ‘other’ Disciplinary power

Inertia Battle between cultures and values

Students engaging

A revised definition of SE

Student engagement is about what a student brings to Higher Education in terms of goals, aspirations, value and beliefs and how these are shaped and mediated by their experience whilst a student. SE is constructed and reconstructed through the lenses of the perceptions and identities held by students and the meaning and sense a student makes of their experiences and interactions. As players and shapers of the educational context, educators need to foster educational, purposeful SE to support and enable students to learn in constructive and powerful ways and realise their potential in education and society.

Students engaging

To aid clarity -separate the dual

Engaging students

Students engaging

Students engaging

Engaging students - principles

We should:1. Foster student’s willingness and readiness to engage by enhancing their

self-belief2. Embrace the point that students have diverse backgrounds, expectations,

orientations and aspirations – thus different ‘ways of being a student’, and to welcome, respect and accommodate all of these in an inclusive way

3. Enable and facilitate trust relationships (between staff:students and students:students) in order to develop a discourse with each and all students and to show solidarity with them

4. Create opportunities for learning (in its broadest sense) communities so that students can develop a sense of competence and belonging within these communities

Students engaging

5. Teach in ways to make learning participatory, dialogic, collaborative, authentic, active and critical

6. Foster autonomy and creativity, and offer choice and opportunities for growth and enriching experiences in a low risk and safe setting

7. Recognise the impact on learning of non-institutional influences and accommodate these

8. Design and implement assessment for learning with the aim to enable students to develop their ability to evaluate critically the quality and impact of their own work

9. Seek to negotiate and reach a mutual consensus with students on managing workload, challenge, curriculum and assessment for their educational enrichment – through a partnership model – without diluting high expectations and educational attainment

10. Enable students to become active citizens and develop their social and cultural capital

Students engaging

So what works? Kuh (2008)i. First year seminars (e.g. SI and PAL)ii. Learning communities – cross moduleiii. Service learning – experientialiv. Common intellectual experiencesv. Writing intensive coursesvi. Collaborative projectsvii. Undergraduate researchviii. Diversity learningix. Internshipsx. Capstone courses

Students engaging

A holistic approach to a degree programme

201196%

• One of the best results at Newcastle

• 1/8 comparable courses at other institutions

Combined Honours at Newcastle Unique degree Missing sense of identity/ belonging Curriculum opportunities

200873%

• lowest of all programmes at Newcastle

• 7/ 8 comparable courses at other universities.

Enhancing engagement in Combined Honours Student representation:

Empowerment- Student led, working groups Partnership Active agenda

Success stories Combined Honours Week Curriculum co-design Redesign of transition

Students engaging

Enhancing engagement in Combined Honours Building community:

Facilities shared spaces social events

Students engaging

Enhancing engagement in Combined Honours Peer mentoring – social integration PASS scheme – academic integration

Students engaging