1. Conceptualising student engagement in order to improve policy and practice Colin Bryson, Newcastle University colin.bryson@ncl.ac.uk

2. Goals  A shared understanding of the nature and meaning of student engagement  Develop a concept map  Develop a set of shared principles  Consider how this should guide practice and policy and consider some current good practice Reconceptualising student engagement

3. 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 Survey used very widely - Over 100 publications Survey used very widely http://nsse.iub.edu/index.cfmhttp://nsse.iub.edu/index.cfm Australia – the FYE…convergence with US thinking Coates developed NSSE into the AUSSE (and now we have SASSE etc) Reconceptualising student engagement

4. 4

5. 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 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? 5

6. 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 6

7. 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 Reconceptualising student engagement

8. A different form of student evidence….my own work  Drawn from three studies since 2003, mainly qualitative  Includes a longitudinal study  Also researched the staff perspective on SE  Identified both levels and influences – and the dynamic nature and fragility of engagement 8

9. 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 discourse 6. A sense of belonging and community 9

10. 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 Reconceptualising student engagement

11. More perspectives Professional formation and authentic learning (identity projects) (Holmes; Reid and Solomonides) – an ‘ontological turn’ Willingness ….and readiness…to engage (McCune; Handley et al; Barnett) Inclusivity (Hockings) Ways of being a student (and SOMUL) (Dubet; Brennan et al) Reconceptualising student engagement

12. Engagement to 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) Perspectives on education (Trowler) Intellectual development (Perry: Baxter Magolda: Belenky) Reconceptualising student engagement

13. The flipside of SE Alienation, inertia/anomie and disengagement (Mann: Krause)  Performativity  Being ‘other’  Disciplinary power  Inertia  Battle between cultures and values Reconceptualising student engagement

14. 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. Reconceptualising student engagement

15. To aid clarity -separate the dual Engaging students Students engaging Reconceptualising student engagement

16. Students engaging - conceptual maps The black box Reconceptualising student engagement

17. Existing models Astin (1991): Input - Environment – Output Dubet (1994): Ways of being a student Zepke and Leach (2011): Conceptual organiser Reid and Solomonides (2007): Relational SE Reconceptualising student engagement

18. The dynamic cycle of student engagement Reconceptualising student engagement

19. SE derived from relationships Reconceptualising student engagement

20. Engaging students - principles We should: 1. Foster student’s willingness and readiness to engage by enhancing their self-belief 2. 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 Reconceptualising student engagement

21. 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 Reconceptualising student engagement

22. So what works? Kuh (2008) i. First year seminars (e.g. SI and PAL) ii. Learning communities – cross module iii. Service learning – experiential iv. Common intellectual experiences v. Writing intensive courses vi. Collaborative projects vii. Undergraduate research viii. Diversity learning ix. Internships x. Capstone courses 22

23. A whole institutional approach Sally Kift http://www.altc.edu.au/resource- first-year-learning-experience-kift-2009http://www.altc.edu.au/resource- first-year-learning-experience-kift-2009 Transition Pedagogies in FYE at QUT A holistic curriculum design approach TransitionDiversity DesignEngagement AssessmentEvaluation and Monitoring 23

24. At the module level Sarah Cant and Peter Watts http://www.slidefinder.net/F/Familiarity_Breeds_Content ment_Sarah_Cant/9136815 http://www.slidefinder.net/F/Familiarity_Breeds_Content ment_Sarah_Cant/9136815 First year sociology module at Canterbury Christchurch Drew on application of sociological theory Year long induction Tiered learning PAL PDP Portfolio assessment 24

25. The student partnership approach HEA and NUS based on HEFCE funded CHERI Report (http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2009/rd03_09/ )http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2009/rd03_09/ Student representation and feedback “students as partners in a learning community” Liz Dunne at Exeter – Students as Change Agents Stuart Brand & Beccy Freeman, Birmingham City University - Academic partners scheme CEEBL – interns at Manchester Curriculum innovation at Southampton! But need to ensure real partnership not ‘pseudo- participation’ 25

26. A holistic approach to a degree programme  Combined Honours at Newcastle  Do not share curriculum and problematic identities/coherence/equity issues 26

27. Enhancing engagement in Combined Honours Codetermination – deliver the student agenda through empowerment and strong student voice – student led SSC and wider fora Redesign of transition, a new ‘combined’ module, other co-designed modules based on innovation Building community – facilities, shared spaces, social events, awards night etc Peer mentoring – this group even more than the reps has become the catalysts and the ‘doers’ 27

28. 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. (Inaugural conference – Sept 15/16 th 2011, Nottingham) 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.ukraise@jiscmail.ac.uk; http://raise-network.ning.com/ Essential that students play a full part Reconceptualising student engagement