Advertisement

The Australian Educational Researcher

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 57–79 | Cite as

A phenomenographic investigation of teacher conceptions of student engagement in learning

  • Lois Ruth Harris
Article

Abstract

Internationally, educational stakeholders are concerned with the high levels of student disengagement, evidenced by early school leaving, poor student behaviour, and low levels of academic achievement. The solution, student engagement, is a contested concept, theorised in a variety of different ways within academic literature. To further understand this concept, a phenomenographic study was conducted to map secondary school teachers’ conceptions of student engagement. Six qualitatively different ways of understanding student engagement were found. This research indicates that teachers do not hold similar understandings of what student engagement means. If the concept of engagement is to become educationally fruitful, the term must be more explicitly defined in educational research and government policy documents to promote shared understandings amongst stakeholder groups.

Keywords

Student Engagement School Engagement Particip Ation Previous Category Behavioural Engagement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ainley, M. (1993). Styles of engagement with learning: Multidimensional assessment of their relationships with strategy use and school achievement.Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Åkerlind, G. (2002).Principles and Practice in Phenomenographic Research. Paper presented at the Current Issues in Phenomenography Conference, Canberra, ACT.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, A. R., Christenson, S. L., Sinclair, M. F., & Lehr, C. A. (2004). Check & connect: The importance of relationships for promoting engagement with school.Journal of School Psychology, 42, 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashworth, P., & Lucas, U. (1998). What is the ‘world’ of phenomenography?Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 42(4), 415–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashworth, P., & Lucas, U. (2000). Achieving empathy and engagement: A practical approach to the design, conduct and reporting of phenomenographic research.Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumenfeld, P., Modell, J., Bartko, W. T., Secada, W., Fredricks, J., Friedel, J., et al. (2005). School engagement of inner-city students during middle childhood. In C. Cooper, C. G. Coll, W. T. Bartko, H. Davis, & C. Chatman (Eds.),Developmental Pathway Through Middle Childhood: Rethinking Contexts and Diversity as Resources. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Bowden, J. (1996). Phenomenographic research — Some methodological issues. In G. Dall’Alba, & B. Hasselgren (Eds.),Reflections on Phenomenography: Toward a Methodology. Goteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  8. Brewster, A., & Bowen, G. (2004). Teacher support and school engagement of Latino middle and high school students at risk of school failure.Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21(1), 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooks, A., Todd, A., Tofflemoyer, S., & Horner, R. (2003). Use of functional assessment and a self-management system to increase academic engagement and work completion.Journal of Positive Behaviour Interventions, 5(3), 144–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bruce, C. (1996).Information literacy: A phenomenography. Unpublished PhD, University of Queensland, Brisbane.Google Scholar
  11. Butler-Kisber, L., & Portelli, J. (2003). The challenge of student engagement: Beyond mainstream conceptions and practices.McGill Journal of Education, 38(2), 207–220.Google Scholar
  12. Carrington, V. (2002).The middle years of schooling in Queensland: A way forward. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  13. Cothran, D. J., & Ennis, C. D. (2000). Building bridges to student engagement: Communicating respect and care for students in urban high schools.Journal of Research and Development in Education, 33(4), 106–117.Google Scholar
  14. Education Queensland. (2003).See the Future: The Middle Phase of Learning State School Action Plan. Brisbane: Queensland Government.Google Scholar
  15. Finn, J. (1989). Withdrawing from school.Review of Educational Research, 59(2), 117–142.Google Scholar
  16. Finn, J., & Rock, D. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure.Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Finn, J., & Voelkl, K. (1993). School characteristics related to student engagement.Journal of Negro Education, 62(3), 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence.Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hyrkas, K., & Paunonen-Ilmonen. (2001). The effects of clinical supervision on the quality of care: Examining the results of team supervision.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(4), 492–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jordan, W. J., & Nettles, S. M. (1999).How Students Invest Their Time out of School: Effects on School Engagement, Life Chances and Achievement (No. 29). Washington DC: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk.Google Scholar
  21. Lamb, S., Dwyer, P., & Wyn, J. (2000).Non-Completion of School in Australia: The Changing Patterns of Participation and Outcomes. Camberwell, Vic: The Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  22. Lamb, S., Walstab, A., Tesse, R., Vickers, M., & Rumberger, R. (2004).Staying on at School: Improving Student Retention in Australia (Report for the Queensland Department of Education and the Arts). Melbourne: Centre for Post-compulsory Education and Lifelong Learning.Google Scholar
  23. Lamborn, S. D., Brown, B. B., Mounts, N. S., & Steinberg, L. (1992). Putting school in perspective: The influence of family, peers, extracurricular participation, and parttime work on academic engagement. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.),Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2004).A handbook for teacher research. Berkshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2005).Freedom and Learning in the Network Society. Paper presented at the 12th Learning Conference, Granada, Andalucia.Google Scholar
  26. Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom.Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography — Describing conceptions of the world around us.Instructional Science, 10, 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography — A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality.Journal of Thought, 21(3), 28–49.Google Scholar
  29. Marton, F. (1994). Phenomenography. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.),The International Encyclopedia of Education, Volume 8. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  30. Marton, F. (2000). The structure of awareness. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.),Phenomenography. Melbourne: RMIT Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Marton, F., & Pong, W. Y. (2005). On the unit of description in phenomenography.Higher Education Research and Development, 24(4), 335–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marton, F., Runesson, U., & Tsui, A. (2004). The space of learning. In F. Marton & A. Tsui (Eds.),Classroom discourses and the space of learning. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1997). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N. Entwistle (Eds.),The experience of learning. Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press.Google Scholar
  34. McKinney, J. D., Mason, J., Perkerson, K., & Clifford, M. (1975). Relationship between classroom behaviour and academic achievement.Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(2), 198–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McMillan, J., & Marks, G. N. (2003).School leavers in Australia: Profiles and pathways (No. 31). Camberwell: The Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  36. Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others and perceived ability.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. New South Wales Department of Education and Training. (2005).Issues Paper 6: Students 15–19 Years Old: Increasing Engagement. Retrieved January 4, 2006 from New South Wales Government, Department of Education and Training Web site: http://www.det.nsw.edu.au/reviews/futuresproject/issuespapers/stdnt_15to19yrs.htmGoogle Scholar
  38. Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.),Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  39. Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement.Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 261–290.Google Scholar
  40. O’Brien, E., & Rollefson, M. (1995).Extracurricular Participation and Student Engagement. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  41. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2000).What Works in Innovation in Education: Motivating Students for Lifelong Learning. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  42. Patrick, K. (1998).Teaching and Learning: The Construction of an Object of Study. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  43. Pope, D. C. (2001).‘Doing School’: How We Are Creating a Generation of Stressed Out, Materialistic and Miseducated Students. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Queensland Government. (2002).Education and Training Reforms for the Future: A White Paper. Brisbane: Author.Google Scholar
  45. Sandberg, J. (1997). Are phenomenographic results reliable?Higher Education Research and Development, 16(2), 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shernoff, D., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory.School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sirin, S., & Rogers-Sirin, L. (2004). Exploring school engagement of middle-class African American adolescents.Youth and Society, 35(3), 323–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sjostrom, B., & Dahlgren, L. O. (2002). Nursing theory and concept development or analysis: Applying phenomenography in nursing research.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40(3), 339–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behaviour and student engagement across the school year.Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smyth, W. J. (1980). Pupil engaged learning time: Concepts, findings and implications.The Australian Journal of Education, 24(3), 225–245.Google Scholar
  51. Svensson, L. (1997). Theoretical foundations of phenomenography.Higher Education Research and Development, 16(2), 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Viadero, D. (2004).New Inquiry to Measure Student Engagement. Retrieved November 15, 2005 from Indiana University, Bloomington Web site: http://www.iub.edu/~nsse/hssse/news_articles/Education_Week_1_21_04.htmGoogle Scholar
  53. Walsh, E. (2000). Phenomenographic analysis of interview transcripts. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.),Phenomenography. Melbourne: RMIT Publishing.Google Scholar
  54. Wehlage, G. G., & Smith, G. A. (1992). Building new programs for students at risk. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.),Student Engagement and Academic Achievement in American Secondary Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  55. Willms, J. D. (2003).Student Engagement at School: A Sense of Belonging and Participation (Results from PISA 2000). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  56. Yu, C. (2003).Meeting the Workforce Demands of Hong Kong’s New Era in Secondary Business Education: Business Teachers’ Conceptions of Students’ Competence and Choice of Teaching Strategies. Unpublished PhD, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australian Association for Research in Education 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lois Ruth Harris
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations