Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Critique of Mainstream Student Engagement

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Student Engagement in Neoliberal Times

  • 1246 Accesses

Abstract

Mainstream student engagement, with its affinity with neoliberalism, can arguably be called an academic orthodoxy. It focuses on what works in the classroom, relies heavily on psychology research, largely ignores ethical and political considerations, assists in the development of a knowledge economy, is used to measure the performance of institutions, managers, teachers and students, and uses accountability systems to do the measuring. These critiques are discussed in this chapter both to add to a paucity of critique of engagement in the literature, and to set the stage for subsequent chapters which seek to find ideas and practices that go beyond the hegemony of the mainstream.

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

Access this chapter

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. London, UK: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (2004). Education, accountability, and the ethical demand: Can the democratic potential of accountability be regained? Educational Theory, 54(3), 233–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (2007). Why ‘what works’ won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (2011). Disciplines and theory in the academic study of education: A comparative analysis of the Anglo-American and continental construction of the field. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 19(2), 175–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookfield, S. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, C., & Hand, L. (2007). The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(4), 349–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, C., & Cabrera, A. (2011). How sound is NSSE? Investigating the psychometric properties of NSSE at a public, research-extensive institution. Review of Higher Education, 35(1), 77–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, P. (2013). Student engagement in university decision-making: Policies, processes and the student voice. (Doctoral), Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H. (2008). Attracting, engaging and retaining: New conversations about learning. Australasian Student Engagement Report. Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Codd, J. (1999). Educational reform, accountability and the culture of distrust. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 34(1), 45–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. (2003). Concepts and conceptual frameworks underpinning the ETL project. Occasional Report 3. Retrieved from Edinburgh, UK: http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/ETLreport3.pdf

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielding, M. (2006). Leadership, radical student engagement and the necessity of person-centred education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(4), 299–313.

    Article  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 

  • Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In C. Gordon & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    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 

  • Habermas, J. (1987). Knowledge and human interests (J. Shapiro, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagel, P., Carr, R., & Devlin, M. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring student engagement through the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE): A critique. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(4), 475–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haggis, T. (2003). Constructing images of ourselves? A critical investigation into ‘Approaches to Learning’ research in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 89–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, S., & Quaye, J. (2009). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howie, P., & Bagnall, R. (2013). A critique of the deep and surface approaches to learning model. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(4), 389–400. doi:10.1080/13562517.2012.733689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, P. (2014). Theorising student engagement in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 40(6), 1005–1018.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinzie, J. (2010). Student engagement and learning experiences that matter. In J. Christensen Hughes & J. Mighty (Eds.), Taking stock: Research on teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 139–153). Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queens University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, K.-L. (2012). Addressing the wicked problem of quality in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(3), 285–297. doi:10.1080/07294360.2011.634381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause, K.-L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493–505. doi:10.1080/02602930701698892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Lather, P. (2004). Scientific research in education: A critical perspective. British Educational Research Journal, 30(6), 759–772.

    Article  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 

  • 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 

  • Neary, M. (2013). Student as producer: A pedagogy for the avant-garde; or, how do revolutionary teachers teach? Retrieved from http://josswinn.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/15-72-1-pb-1.pdf

  • Nygaard, N., Brand, S., Bartholomew, P., & Millard, L. (2013). Student engagement: Identity, motivation and community. Faringdon, UK: Libri Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, A.-M. (2005). Individualism, enterprise, culture and curriculum policy. In J. Codd & K. Sullivan (Eds.), Education policy directions in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 71–86). Southbank, Melbourne: Thomson Learning Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelan, A. (2011). Towards a complicated conversation: Teacher education and the curriculum turn. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 19(2), 207–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S. (2009). Do college student surveys have any validity? Review of Higher Education, 35(1), 45–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priestly, M. (2011). Whatever happened to curriculum theory? Critical realism and curriculum change. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 19(2), 221–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, I. (2003). Is it ‘what works’ that matters? Evaluation and evidence-based policy-making. Research Papers in Education, 18(4), 331–345. doi:10.1080/0267152032000176846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, D. (2010). Neoliberal ideology and public higher education in the United States. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 8(1), 42–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smyth, J. (2012). When students ‘speak back’: Student engagement towards a socially just society. In B. McMahon & J. Portelli (Eds.), Student engagement in urban school: Beyond neoliberal discourses (pp. 73–90). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    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 

  • Stuckey, H., Taylor, E., & Cranton, P. (2014). Developing a survey of transformative learning outcomes and processes based on theoretical principles. Journal of Transformative Education, 1–18. doi:10.1177/1541344614540335

  • Suspitsyna, T. (2010). Accountability in American education as a rhetoric and a technology of governmentality. Journal of Education Policy, 25(5), 567–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, L., & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education. Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/

  • Taylor, P., Wilding, D., Mockridge, A., & Lambert, C. (2012). Reinventing engagement. In I. Solomonides, A. Reid, & P. Petocz (Eds.), Engaging with learning in higher education (pp. 259–278). Faringdon, UK: Libri Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teo, T. (2011). The critique of psychology: From Kant to postcolonial theory. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, L. (2002). Student retention in higher education: The role of institutional habitus. Journal of Education Policy, 17(4), 423–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, L. (2012). Building student engagement and belonging in higher education at a time of change: Final report from the what works? student retention and success project. Paul Hamlyn Foundation, Higher Education Funding Council for England, The Higher Education Academy and Action on Access.

    Google Scholar 

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

  • Usher, R., Bryant, I., & Johnston, R. (1997). Adult education and the postmodern challenge: Learning beyond the limits. London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, R., Teo, T., & Baydala, A. (2014). A critical history and philosophy of psychology: Diversity of context, thought and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates, L. (2009). From curriculum to pedagogy and back again: Knowledge, the person and the changing world. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 17(1), 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yorke, M. (2006). Student engagement: Deep, surface or strategic? Paper presented at the Pacific Rim First Year in Higher Education Conference, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zepke, N. (2013). Student engagement: A complex business supporting the first year experience in tertiary education. International Journal of the First year in Higher Education, 4(2), 1–14. doi:10.5204/intjfyhe.v4i1.183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zepke, N. (2015). Student engagement research: Thinking beyond the mainstream. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1311–1323. doi:10.1080/07294360.2015.1024635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(3), 167–179. doi:10.1177/1469787410379680

    Article  Google Scholar 

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). A Critique of Mainstream Student Engagement. In: Student Engagement in Neoliberal Times. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3200-4_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3200-4_6

  • 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