Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Student Engagement in Neoliberal Times pp 21–35Cite as

Mainstream Perspectives and Frameworks

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

This chapter digs more deeply into the multiple views about student engagement introduced in Chap.  1. Three different meaning perspectives are discussed: a quantitative generic pedagogical perspective; a cognitive learning focused perspective and a holistic lifewide experience perspective. Together, these perspectives provide a historical account of the development of student engagement. But this account focuses on theoretical developments and does not offer a clear view of possible practical differences between perspectives. To offer a more practice orientated overview of student engagement, the chapter identifies four practice frameworks derived from the three broad perspectives. The quantitative generic pedagogical perspective and the cognitive learning focused perspective are retained as separate practice frameworks. The holistic lifewide experience perspective divides into psychocultural and sociopolitical frameworks. Four variables—how learning agency and motivation are stimulated; what key learning and teaching processes are practised; how learner wellbeing is promoted; and how active citizenship is conceived—reveal differences between them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Axelson, R., & Flick, A. (2010). Defining student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(1), 38–43. Doi:10.1080/00091383.2011.533096

  • Báez, C. (2011). Crafting programs to stimulate student engagement and persistence in higher education. Paper Presented at the 15th Biennial of the International Study Association on Teachers and Teaching (ISATT), University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, R. (2010). Life-wide education: A new and transformative concept for higher education? Enabling a More Complete Education e-Proceedings On-line. Retrieved from http://lifewidelearningconference.pbworks.com/w/page/24285296/E%20proceedings

  • Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2005). Engaging the curriculum in higher education. Maidenhead, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48(3), 266–297. Doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1978.tb03013.x

  • Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. (2005). Contrasting perspectives on learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (3rd (Internet) ed., pp. 3–22). Edinburgh, UK: Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment, University of Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Hounsell, J. (2002). Approaches to studying and perceptions of university teaching-learning environments: Concepts, measures and preliminary findings. Occasional Report 1. Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments (ETL) Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Tait, H. (2013). Approaches and study skills inventories for students (ASSIST) incorporating the revised approaches to studying inventory. Report of the development and use of the inventories. Retrieved from https://www.mededportal.org/publication/9404

  • Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London, UK: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, J. (2009). Well-being and happiness: Inquiry into the future for lifelong learning. Thematic Article 4. Retrieved from Leicester, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Forgeard, M., Jayawickreme, E., Kern, M., & Seligman, M. (2011). Doing the right thing: Measuring wellbeing for public policy. International Journal of Wellbeing, 1(1), 79–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furman, G., & Gruenewald, D. (2004). Expanding the landscape of social justice: A critical ecological analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 47–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahu, E. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758–773. Doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.598505

  • Kuh, G. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141, 5–20. Doi:10.1002/ir.v2009:141/issuetoc

  • Kuh, G., Cruce, T., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 79, 540–563. Doi:10.1080/01421590701721721

  • Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J., Bridges, B., & Hayek, J. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/IPEDS/research/pdf/Kuh_Team_Report.pdf

  • Lam, S., Wong, B., Yang, H., & Liu, M. (2012). Understanding student engagement with a conceptual model. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 403–420). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, M., & Lawson, H. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 432–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, A., Gonyea, R., & Kinzie, J. (2013). Refreshing engagement: NSSE at 13. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 45(3), 6–15. Doi:10.1080/00091383.2013.786985

  • McLaren, P. (2003). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education (4th ed.). New York, NY: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, B., & Portelli, J. (2004). Engagement for what? Beyond popular discourses of student engagement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(1), 59–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, B., & Portelli, J. (2012). The challenges of neoliberalism in education: Implications for student engagement. In B. McMahon & J. Portelli (Eds.), Student engagement in urban school: Beyond neoliberal discourses (pp. 1–10). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. (1991). Study orchestration: The manifestation, interpretation and consequences of contextualised approaches to studying. Higher Education, 22(3), 297–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, K., Kift, S., & Clarke, J. (2012). A transition pedagogy for student engagement and first-year learning, success and retention. In I. Solomonides, A. Reid, & P. Petocz (Eds.), Engaging with learning in higher education (pp. 117–144). Faringdon, UK: Libri Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P., & Callender, C. (2014). Review of the national student survey: Appendix A: Literature review. Retrieved from London, UK: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/year/2014/nssreview/#alldownloads

  • Seligman, M. (2011). Flourish. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomonides, I., Reid, A., & Petocz, P. (2012). A relational model of student engagement. In I. Solomonides, A. Reid, & P. Petocz (Eds.), Engaging with learning in higher education (pp. 11–24). Faringdon, UK: Libri Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinto, V. (1987). The principles of effective retention. Paper Presented at the Maryland College Personnel Association, Prince George’s Community College, Largo, MD. http://files.eric.ed.govt/fulltext/ED301267.pdf

  • Tinto, V. (2010). From theory to action: Exploring the institutional conditions for student retention. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 51–89). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/studentengagement/StudentEngagementLiteratureReview.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Education, Massey University Manawatu, Palmerston North, New Zealand

    Nick Zepke

Authors
  1. Nick Zepke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nick Zepke .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zepke, N. (2017). Mainstream Perspectives and Frameworks. In: Student Engagement in Neoliberal Times. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3200-4_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3200-4_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-3198-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-3200-4

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation