Skip to main content
Log in

Student Engagement, ‘Learnification’ and the Sociomaterial: Critical Perspectives on Higher Education Policy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Higher Education Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The term ‘student engagement’ has become ubiquitous in mainstream discourses concerning higher education in the UK and beyond. The term is used to denote a desirable set of practices and orientations in students which should be worked towards or encouraged in order for teaching in higher education to be deemed successful — as such, it has enormous influence in the higher education (HE) as part of a discourse which carries powerful ideological force in the sector. However, as Kahn (Br Educ Res J 40(6):1005–1018, 2013) points out, it is a concept which is weakly theorised in the literature. This paper will interrogate the concept in order to deepen understanding of how the term operates. I will argue first that the notion often relies on typological categories which tend to posit the individual as the primary site of student engagement and secondly that this is primarily identified in interlocution or observable interaction. Drawing on the work of Gert Biesta, I will argue that this position reflects a broader trend towards ‘learnification’ in higher education, which positions teaching as problematic and inherently repressive. I seek to build on this critique by arguing for a reframing which recognises the sociomaterial and radically distributed nature of human and non-human agency in day-to-day student engagement.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barkley, E. (2010) Student Engagement Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty, San Fransisco, CA: Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (2005) ‘Against learning. Reclaiming a language for education in an age of learning’, Nordisk Pedagogik 25(no issue no), 54–56.

  • Biesta, G. (2006) Beyond Learning. Democratic Education for a Human Future. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (2010) ‘Why ‘what works’ still won’t work. From evidence-based education to value-based education’, Studies in Philosophy and Education 29(5): 491–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (2012) ‘Giving teaching back to education: responding to the disappearance of the teacher’, Phenomenology and Practice 6(2): 35–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (2016) ‘The rediscovery of teaching: on robot vacuum cleaners, non-egological education and the limits of the hermeneutical world view’, Educational Philosophy and Theory 48(4): 374–392.

    Article  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 

  • Coates, H. (2010) ‘Development of the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE)’, Higher Education 60(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, E. and Owen, D. (2013) The Student Engagement Handbook: Practice in Higher Education, Bingley: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick, T., Edwards, R. and Sawchuk., P. (2011) Emerging Approaches to Educational Research: Tracing the Sociomaterial, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, S. (2012) ‘Learner analytics: drivers, developments and challenges’, International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning 4(5–6): 304–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folley, D. (2009) The Lecture is Dead, Long Live the e-Lecture. The Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on E-Learning; 29–30 October, University of Bari, Italy, pp. 204–211.

  • Gourlay, L. (2015a) ‘Student engagement and the tyranny of participation’, Teaching in Higher Education 20(4): 402–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gourlay, L. (2015b) ‘Open education as a ‘heterotopia of desire’, Learning, Media and Technology 40(3): 310–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HEA (2011) The UK Professional Standards Framework for Teaching and Supporting Learning. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/downloads/ukpsf_2011_english.pdf, accessed 12 December 2016.

  • Kahn, P. (2013) ‘Theorising Student Engagement in Higher Education’, British Educational Research Journal 40(6): 1005–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kandiko, C. (2008) ‘Student engagement in two countries: a comparative study using national survey of student engagement data’, Journal of Institutional Research 14(1): 71–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D. (2000) ‘Misconceptions about the Learning Approaches, Motivation and Study Practices of Asian Students’, Higher Education 40(1): 99–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G.D. (2009) ‘The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual and Empirical Foundations’, New Directions for Institutional Research 2009 (141): 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinas, E. (1985) Ethics and Infinity. Conversations with Philippe Nemo, Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlane, B. and Gourlay, L. (2009) ‘The reflection game: enacting the penitent self’, Teaching in Higher Education 14(4): 455–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paz Dennan, V. (2008) ‘Pedagogical lurking: student engagement in non-posting discussion behaviour’, Computers and Human Behaviour 24(4): 1624–1633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quaye, J. and Harper, J. (Eds.) 2015. Student Engagement in Higher Education: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations (2nd Ed.), New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, B. (2012) ‘The flipped classroom: online instruction at home frees class time for learning’, Education Next 12(1): 82–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trowler, V. (2010) Student Engagement Literature Review, York: The Higher Education Academy.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lesley Gourlay.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gourlay, L. Student Engagement, ‘Learnification’ and the Sociomaterial: Critical Perspectives on Higher Education Policy. High Educ Policy 30, 23–34 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0037-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0037-1

Keywords

Navigation