Student Engagement initiatives: well meaning but counterproductive?

 

What do we mean by the term ‘Student Engagement’? How do we measure it? How should be enable it? These are issues reflected on in a recent paper from Australia (Baron and Corbin, 2012).

The authors report that student engagement is high on the priorities of some institutions because of a perception, particularly amongst academic staff, that there is a trend towards student disengagement. Increasingly, there are concerns about poor attendance, a lack of preparation for tutorials or seminars, disinterest in active learning and students’ expressed desire to be on campus for very limited periods.

They suggest there is a global consensus on the value of student engagement as a prerequisite for improving student achievement and student experience. However, the term has a multitude of interpretations and, interestingly, a there is a lack of consensus on how to gauge the success of engagement initiatives.

Baron and Corbin suggest that there is much incoherence and fragmentation at the heart of current practice and policy. It is often well-meaning, but in practice is confused or contradictory and in some cases been counterproductive by actively contributing to a culture of disengagement.

They argue for a focused approach to engagement that takes account of:

• institutional mission
• the campus environment
• to diverse student voices
• the voices of academic and administrative staff, who are often at the front line of student engagement issues.

Most importantly, they argue that student engagement cannot be successfully pursued at the level of the individual academic or Department. It must be pursued holistically in a ‘whole-of-university’ approach and with a common understanding of what it is the institution seeks to achieve.

Paula Baron & Lillian Corbin (2012): Student engagement: rhetoric and reality, Higher Education Research & Development, 31:6, 759-772