How radical is student engagement? (And what is it for?)

Abstract

This paper argues that the term ‘student engagement’ as used in UK higher education covers activities with two distinct sets of benefits: those that are pedagogical, and those that are political. Without an overarching account of the value of student engagement that can unify these two sets of benefits, the concept of student engagement in the UK is therefore fundamentally fractured. The paper proposes that critical pedagogy can provide that underpinning account, but at the expense of the current mainstream nature of student engagement. The paper therefore argues that those working in student engagement in UK higher education face a dilemma: either sacrifice the idea of student engagement as a popular solution to mainstream challenges, or give up the idea that student engagement has a unified set of benefits and coherent purpose

Co-creation in learning and teaching: the case for a whole-class approach in higher education

“…There is huge variation in the types of co-creation being enacted around the world, with work focusing on different activities, actors, and aims, for example, students co-researching university-wide projects and acting as change agents (Dunne and Zandstra 2011), students undertaking research and scholarship projects with staff (Werder and Otis 2010), student representatives collaborating with university staff on committees for quality assurance and enhancement purposes (Luescher-Mamashela 2013;Buckley 2014), students participating in course design review committees (Mihans et al 2008;Rock et al 2015), students as consultants providing feedback on teaching observations (Cook-Sather et al 2014;Huxham et al 2017), students designing their own essay titles (Cook-Sather et al 2014), students and teachers co-assessing work (Deeley 2014), students co-designing courses and curricula (Bovill 2014;Delpish et al 2010), students co-evaluating courses (Bovill et al 2010), students and staff writing collaboratively (Marquis et al 2016), and students involved in teaching and designing academic development work (Kandiko Howson and Weller 2016). Cook-Sather et al (2014: 209) have likened this to a 'partnership movement', but it is a movement embracing a diversity of focus, motivations, methods, values, and outcomes.…”

“…There can often be overlap between the roles, but this model enables us to distinguish between the student representative role, which tends to be an elected role involving a small group of students representing a larger group of students; the consultant or intern role, which often involves students being selected by staff, and usually paid to collaborate on projects; and the co-research and pedagogical co-designer roles, where students may or may not be selected depending on if teachers choose to work with a small group or a whole class of students. In an alternative categorisation, Buckley (2014) has suggested that student engagement work (which encompasses much partnership and co-creation work) divides into two main areas of focus: the pedagogical and the political, with the former focused on learning and teaching and the latter focused on university governance. Finally, in a third typology, Bryson et al (2015) propose that existing student partnership work can be categorised by the students who are involved in partnership.…”

A Framework to Explore Roles Within Student-Staff Partnerships in Higher Education: Which Students Are Partners, When, and in What Ways?

“…Within the "Students as Partners" (SaP) discourse there is growing recognition that SaP initiatives are diverse (Dunne, 2016). Authors such as Bovill, Cook-Sather, Felten, Millard, and Moore-Cherry (2016), Bryson, Furlonger, and Rinaldo-Langridge (2015), Buckley (2014), and Healey, Flint, and Harrington (2014) have suggested that SaP research and practice can be differentiated in a range of ways. For example, there are SaP initiatives focused on either governance or pedagogy; SaP can involve work with individuals, small groups of students or whole cohorts of students; and in situations where a subset of students are invited to become partners, they may be elected or selected.…”

Development of the UK engagement survey

“…The difference between the pedagogical focus of the US work on engagement, centred around individual student behaviours and institutional environments has been contrasted with the more political motivation behind the UK concentration on representation and realignment of power structures (Buckley 2015b).…”