Deep Engagement as a Complex System: Identity, Learning Power and Authentic Enquiry

Abstract

This chapter develops a definition of engagement which is underpinned by a participatory enquiry paradigm and invites an exploration of patterns and relationships between variables rather than a focus on a single variable. It suggests that engagement is best understood as a complex system including a range of interrelated factors internal and external to the learner, in place and in time, which shape his or her engagement with learning opportunities. The implications of this approach are explored first in terms of student identity, learning power and competences and second in terms of student participation in the construction of knowledge through authentic enquiry. Examples are used to illustrate the arguments which have been generated from research into the theory and practice of Learning Power and from the Learning Futures programme in the UK and Australia. The chapter argues that what is necessary for deep engagement in the twenty-first century is a pedagogy and an assessment system which empower ­individuals to become aware of their identity as learners through making choices about what, where and how they learn and to make meaningful connections with their life stories and aspirations in authentic pedagogy. In this context, the teacher is a facilitator or coach for learning rather than a purveyor of expert knowledge.

References

  1. American Psychological Association. (1997). Learner centred principles: A framework for school reform and redesign. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  2. Aucoin, P. (1990). Administrative reform in public management: Paradigms, principles, paradoxes and pendulums. Governance, 3(2), 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. San Francisco: Chandler.Google Scholar
  4. Bauman, Z. (2001). Community seeking safety in an insecure world. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Black, P., McCormick, R., James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Assessment for learning and learning how to learn: A theoretical enquiry. Research Papers in Education, 21(2), 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bloomer, M. (2001). Young lives, learning & transformation: Some theoretical considerations. Oxford Review of Education, 27(3), 429–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bloomer, M., & Hodkinson, P. (2000). Learning careers: Continuity and change in young people’s dispositions to learning. British Educational Research Journal, 26(5), 583–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bottery, M. (1992). The ethics of educational management. London: Cassell Educational Ltd.Google Scholar
  9. Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  11. Deakin Crick, R. (2004). The ecology of learning. Paper presented at the ESRC Knowledge and Skills for Learning to Learn Seminar Series, University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.Google Scholar
  12. Deakin Crick, R. (2009a). Inquiry-based learning: Reconciling the personal with the public in a democratic and archaeological pedagogy. Curriculum Journal, 20(1), 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deakin Crick, R. (2009b). Assessment in schools – dispositions. In B. McGaw, P. Peterson, & E. Baker (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (3rd ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  14. Deakin Crick, R. (2009c). Pedagogical challenges for personalisation: Integrating the personal with the public through context-driven enquiry. Curriculum Journal, 20(3), 185–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deakin Crick, R., Broadfoot, P., & Claxton, G. (2004). Developing an effective lifelong learning inventory: The ELLI Project. Assessment in Education, 11(3), 248–272.Google Scholar
  16. Deakin Crick, R., & Grushka, K. (2010). Signs, symbols and metaphor: Linking self with text in inquiry based learning. Curriculum Journal, 21(1).Google Scholar
  17. Deakin Crick, R., Grushka, K., Heitmeyer, D., & Nicholson, M. (2010). Learning, place and identity: An exploration of the affordances of a pedagogy of place amongst Indigenous Australian students. Bristol, UK: University of Bristol.Google Scholar
  18. Deakin Crick, R., Jelfs, H., Ren, K., & Symonds, J. (2010). Learning futures. London: Paul Hamlyn Foundation.Google Scholar
  19. Deakin Crick, R., Small, T., Jaros, M., Pollard, K., Leo, E., Hearne, P., et al. (2007). Inquiring minds: Transforming potential through personalised learning. London: Royal Society of Arts.Google Scholar
  20. Deakin Crick, R., & Yu, G. (2008). The effective lifelong learning inventory (ELLI): Is it valid and reliable as a measurement tool? Education Research, 50(4), 387–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
  23. Goldspink, C. (2007a). Rethinking educational reform – A loosely coupled and complex systems perspective. International Journal of Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 35(1), 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldspink, C. (2007b). Transforming education: Evidential support for a complex systems approach. Emergence: Complexity and Organisation, 9(1–2), 77–92.Google Scholar
  25. Goldspink, C. (2008). Student engagement and quality pedagogy. Paper presented at the European Education Research Conference, Gottenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
  26. Goodson, I. (2009). Listening to professional life stories: Some cross-professional perspectives. In M. Bayer, U. Brinkkjær, H. Plauborg, & S. Rolls (Eds.), Teachers’ career trajectories and work lives (Vol. 3, pp. 203–210). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goodson, I., & Beista, G. (2010). Narrative learning. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Goodson, I., & Deakin Crick, R. (2009). Curriculum as narration: Tales from the children of the colonised. Curriculum Journal, 20(3), 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grushka, K. (2009). Meaning and identities: A visual performative pedagogy for socio-cultural learning. Curriculum Journal, 20(3), 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guthrie, J., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. Kamil & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Habermas, J. (1973). Knowledge and human interests. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Harlen, W., & Deakin Crick, R. (2003a). A systematic review of the impact of summative assessment and testing on pupils’ motivation for learning. London: Evidence for Policy and Practice Co-ordinating Centre Department for Education and Skills.Google Scholar
  33. Harlen, W., & Deakin Crick, R. (2003b). Testing and motivation for learning. Assessment in Education, 10(2), 169–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Haste, H. (2001). Ambiguity, autonomy and agency. In D. Rychen & L. Salganik (Eds.), Definition and selection of competencies: Theoretical and conceptual foundations. Seattle, WA: OECD/Hogreffe/Huber.Google Scholar
  35. Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 274–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Innovation Unit. (2008). Learning futures: Next practice in learning and teaching. London: Innovation Unit.Google Scholar
  37. Jaros, M., & Deakin Crick, R. (2007). Personalised learning in the post mechanical age. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(4), 423–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ladwig, J., & Gore, J. (2004). Quality teaching in NSW public schools: An assessment practice guide. Sydney, Australia: Professional Support and Curriculum Directorate, NSW Department of Education and Training.Google Scholar
  39. Ladwig, J., & King, M. (1991). Restructuring secondary social studies: The association of organizational features and classroom thoughtfulness. Madison, WI: National Center on Effective Secondary Schools [BBB24601].Google Scholar
  40. Ladwig, J., & King, M. (2003). Quality teaching in NSW public schools: An annotated bibliography. Sydney, Australia: NSW Department of Education and Training.Google Scholar
  41. Langer, E. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  42. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lemke, J. (2000). Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7, 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mahn, H., & John-Steiner, V. (2002). Developing the affective zone of proximal development. In G. Wells & C. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century: Socio-cultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 46–58). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  45. McCombs, B., & Lauer, P. (1997). Development and validation of the learner-centred battery: Self assessment tools for teacher reflection and professional development. Professional Educator, 20(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  46. Nasir, N., & Saxe, G. (2003). Ethnic and academic identities: A cultural practice perspective on emerging ­tensions and their management in the lives of minority students. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 14–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Newmann, F. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  48. Newmann, F., Marks, H., & Gamoran, A. (1996). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal of Education, 104(4), 280–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring. Madison, WI: Center on Organisation and Restructuring of Schools.Google Scholar
  50. Paul Hamlyn Foundation, & Innovation Unit. (2010). Learning futures engaging schools: Principles and practice. London: Paul Hamlyn Foundation.Google Scholar
  51. Perkins, D. (2010). Making learning whole: How seven principles of teaching can transform learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  52. Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. New York: Anchor/Doubleday.Google Scholar
  53. Reason, P. (2005). Living as part of the whole: The implications of participation. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 2(2), 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Seely Brown, J., & Thomas, D. (2009). Learning for a world of constant change. Paper presented at the 7th Gillon Colloquium, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  55. Self, P. (2000). Rolling back the market. New York: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  56. Sfard, A., & Prusak, A. (2005). Telling identities: In search of an analytic tool for investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stretton, H., & Orchard, L. (1994). Public goods, public enterprise, public choice: Theoretical foundations of the contemporary attack on government. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  58. Udehn, L. (1996). The limits of public choice: A sociological critique of the economic theory of politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Vygotsky, L. (1962/1934). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Wehlage, G., & Rutter, R. (1986). Dropping out: How much do schools contribute to the problem? Teachers College Record, 87, 374–392.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations