1. Aston University HELM seminar series Student engagement: beyond approaches to learning theory Christine Hockings (University of Wolverhampton) February 10 th 2006

2. Outline  Background  Research questions  Theories for understanding student engagement  Testing the theories -methods  Findings  Further research

3. Background: The ‘problem’ Possible ‘solution’ Student-centred approach to learning and teaching has the potential to engage a more academically diverse student body than the more conventional teacher- centred approaches (Biggs, 2003) The approach also encourages the development of critical thinking skills and a deep approach to learning. Situation prior to WP initiative Small class sizes, ‘traditional’ students, little diversity. Teacher centred approaches ‘effective’ for the majority Situation in late 90s Large classes, highly diverse students Teacher-centred approaches ‘effective’ for a minority

4. Background: The first study Evaluation Most students adopted approaches to learning that might be considered as “deep.” Around 30% of the class adopted a “surface” approach. Action research project (1999-2000) To what extent can a change to student-centred teaching develop students’ critical thinking skills and encourage a ‘deep’ approach to learning (for all students)? Action Redevelop pedagogy, syllabus and assessment on a core module based on student-centred learning principles. Data collection Interviews, video recorded classroom observations, students’ work, etc Analysis 10 learning behaviours, 5 conceptions of learning ranging from ‘surface’ to ‘deep’ (Marton and Saljo, 1976a, 1976b)

5. Research questions Why is student-centred learning effective for some but not all students? What theoretical frameworks can help explain why it is ineffective for some students?

6. Theories for understanding student engagement in learning  Approaches to learning theory (e.g. Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Marton & Booth, 1997) focus on the interaction between factors in the learning situation (e.g. prior experience of learning, perceptions of the learning situation and the teaching context itself)  Sociological, political and social theories of learning (see Haggis & Pouget, 2002; Mann, 2001; Wenger, 1998) focus on social, political, economic and institutional factors affecting student engagement (e.g. identity, belonging, alienation, security and stability)

7. Theories for understanding student engagement in learning  Model of academic engagement (Ashwin & McLean, 2004) attempts to combine the factors from these two approaches. Model of academic engagement  Women’s ways of knowing framework (Belenky et al. 1997) focuses on the different ways that women of all backgrounds come to know and conceive of knowledge. It includes an appreciation of the social, economic and political factors that shape women’s ways of knowing about themselves, their sense of identity, belonging and isolation.  Taken as a whole, these three perspectives could be used to gain a more complete understanding of the students’ experience and its influence on participation and engagement.

8. Testing the theories - Methods  Selected one student-centred learning project from my original study with which students appeared to engage in different ways and at different levels (see Hockings, 2006 p. 10)  Extracted all comments and records of their behaviour during the activity previously coded as ‘surface’  Re analysed these data from the 3 theoretical perspectives to see if this would reveal new insights into non- engagement

9. Findings Approaches to learning perspective – surface approach From an approaches to learning perspective Jay behaves in ways consistent with a surface approach to learning.  He focuses on acquiring information (which may be reproduced in the future e.g. for exam).  He expects the teacher to provide the ‘the right answer’ Tutor: What have you read about them? Jay: The five gurus? I read 'em yeah and err… Yeah I read ‘em but I couldn't differentiate between all five of them. Might sound a bit funny, yeah. CH:Did you just read or did you make notes. Jay: I just read through. Tutor: You made loads of notes on the video, I saw you. You never stopped writing. Jay: I know. Well notes don't make a difference do it? It's the explanation of them... I expected him to go through and explain everything properly first and then give you the work to do… You ask him a question and he never answers you straight. Like he's always got three or four different meanings to his answers.

10. Findings Epistemological perspective - received knowledge ‘I tend to trust more what a professor says than what a student says. I have more faith in the teacher, that what he says is correct and concise. Whereas the student might be giving her opinion; it might not be the right one. The teachers are always more or less right’ (from Belenky at al., 1997, p. 39). Wendy:Do you get a choice of the three topics [in the exam]? Say if, like, I’ve worked on capacity management, would I have to talk about the other [topics] that I've learnt from [the other students]? Or…? Tutor:There is enough flexibility in the exam question for you to demonstrate what you know. Tony:What we know ourselves or what the rest of the group has taught us? Wendy: ‘Cos what about if they haven't taught me properly? Jill: That's what worries us. The fact that... How about if their understanding is not quite right? I'm not saying it is. Or I misinterpret something…? You might understand it but misinterpret it in some way.

11. Findings Sociological perspective - Identity, belonging, alienation Matt:I just don't think there's as much effort being put in as if it were...this will give you a grade sort of thing…. So I sort of, on a Wednesday and Thursday I finish at 4 and I jump on a bus and jump on another bus and I get to [north campus] and I jump on another bus and come up here. Which is why I am always sort of stressed out when I get here basically From a social theory of learning perspective (Wenger 1998, p. 170), Matt’s non- participative behaviour may be explained as a strategy, not just for coping with stress or boredom, but as a way of constructing an identity from outside the community.

12. Implications for practice  If we are to widen access to HE, we must also widen student engagement.  We need to understand how students’ identities, their conceptions of teachers, learning and knowing influence how they experience learning in HE.  We also need to understand how teachers’ identities, conceptions of students, teaching, learning and knowing influence how they practice. We need to reflect critically on the practices and institutional hurdles that we set that might exclude students and create environments that are more inclusive;  Understanding each other is the first step towards identifying aspects of our pedagogy that either alienate or engage students.  A combined theoretical model could help develop our understanding of student non- participation in large, highly diverse groups.  A combined model could be used as an analytical, evaluative and/or design tool for the development of inclusive learning environments

13. Further research  Further research is required to develop and test a combined theoretical model.  ESRC/TLRP funded research project ‘Learning and Teaching for Social Diversity and Difference’Learning and Teaching for Social Diversity and Difference’

14. References Ashwin, P and McLean, M. (2004) Towards an integration of the 'approaches to learning' and 'critical pedagogy' perspectives in higher education through a focus on academic engagement. British Education Research Association, Special Interest Group in Higher Education, University of Oxford, May 26th 2004) Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., Tarule, J. M. (1997) Women’s ways of knowing. Second Edition. (New York, Basic Books). Biggs, J. (2003) Teaching for quality learning at university. Second Edition. (Buckingham, Society for Research in Higher Education/Open University Press) Haggis, T. and Pouget, M. (2002) Trying to be motivated: perspectives on learning from younger students accessing higher education. Teaching in Higher Education 7,3. pp. 323-336 Mann, S. (2001) Alternative perspectives on the student experience: alienation and engagement. Studies in Higher Education. 26, 1. pp. 7-19. Marton, F., and Booth, S. (1997) Learning and awareness. (New Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates). Marton, F., and Saljo, R. (1976a) On qualitative differences in learning l - outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 46, pp. 4 – 11. Marton, F., and Saljo, R. (1976b) On qualitative differences in learning ll - outcome as a function of the conception of the learner's task. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 46, pp.115-127. Prosser, M. and Trigwell, K. (1999) Understanding Learning and Teaching: The experience in Higher Education. (Buckingham, Society for Research in Higher Education/Open University Press). Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice. Learning meaning and identity. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).

15. Reproduced from Ashwin and McLean, 2004). Model of Academic Engagement.

16. Teacher identity Conceptions of - students; - learning & teaching; - knowledge & knowing Social / cultural background Prior experience of teaching in HE Epistemological position Areas for exploration Factors influencing academic engagement Social / cultural background Economic position Educational background Educational / career aspirations Political Social Institutional Cultural Economic Student identity Conceptions of - university teachers; - learning & teaching; - knowledge & knowing Similarity / difference Interaction Teaching interventions Academic engagement?