Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Critiques of Student Engagement

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

Abstract

Student engagement initiatives at the national, institutional and classroom level have emerged against a backdrop of rising participation rates and the marketisation of higher education. This context has informed the development of a literature that is heavily influenced by cause-effect framing and a focus on effectiveness. However, in recent years an alternative, critical literature has emerged that challenges some of the assumptions of the student engagement movement on the grounds of student rights and freedoms as learners. This review article identifies the following six critiques of student engagement based on an analysis of the literature and arguments stemming from analyses of the effects of neoliberalism, namely performativity, marketing, infantilisation, surveillance, gamification and opposition. It is concluded that at a policy and institutional governance level, there is a need to shift the emphasis from what and how questions concerning student engagement to consider its broader political, economic and ethical implications as a means of challenging the prevailing policy narrative.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) (2008) Attracting, engaging and retaining: New conversations about learning. Australasian student engagement report, Camberwell, VIC: ACER.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashwin, P. and McVitty, D. (2015) ‘The Meanings of Student Engagement: Implications for Policies and Practices’, in A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi and P. Scott (eds.) The European higher education area: between critical reflections and future policies, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 343–359.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, R. (1988) ‘Does higher education have aims?’, Journal of Philosophy of Education 22(2): 239–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brannick, T. and Coghlan, D. (2007) ‘In Defense of Being “Native”: The case of insider academic research’, Organisational Research Methods 10(1): 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. and Carasso, H. (2013) Everything for Sale?: The Marketisation of UK Higher Education, New York and London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D. (2001) ‘Using journal writing to enhance reflective practice’, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 90(1): 9–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H. and McCormick, A.C. (eds.) (2014) Engaging University Students: International Insights from System-Wide Studies, Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collini, S. (2012) What are Universities for?, London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danvers E.C. (2015) ‘Criticality’s affective entanglements: Rethinking emotion and critical thinking in higher education’, Gender and Education doi:10.1080/09540253.2015.1115469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, S. (2006) ‘The impact of institutional surveillance technologies on student behaviour’, Surveillance & Society 4(1/2): 69–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (DBIS) (2015) Fulfilling Our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice, London: DBIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (DBIS) (2016) Higher Education: Success as a Knowledge Economy – White Paper, London: DBIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ecclestone, K. and Hayes, D. (2009) The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education, New York and Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmond, N. and Berry, J. (2014) ‘Discourses of ‘equivalence’ in HE and notions of student engagement: resisting the neoliberal university’, Student Engagement and Experience Journal, doi:10.7190/seej.v3i2.90.

  • Evans, C., Muijs, D. and Tomlinson, M. (2015) Engaged Student Learning: High-Impact Strategies to Enhance Student Achievement, York: Higher Education Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fejes, A. and Dahlstedt, M. (2013) The Confessing Society: Foucault, Confession and Practices of Lifelong Learning, Oxford and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punishment, London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C. and Paris, A.H. (2004) ‘School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence’, Review of Educational Research 74(1): 59–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furedi, F. (2004) Therapy culture: Creating Vulnerability in an Uncertain Age, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilmore, S. and Anderson, V. (2016) ‘The emotional turn in higher education: a psychoanalytic contribution’, Teaching in Higher Education, doi:10.1080/13562517.2016.1183618.

  • Giroux, H.A. (2014) Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education, Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley, M. (2007) ‘Philosophy’s Contribution to Social Science Research on Education’, in D. Bridges and R. Smith (eds.) Philosophy, Methodology and Educational Research, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 251–264.

  • Hobbs, V. (2007) ‘Faking it or hating it: can reflective practice be forced?’, Reflective Practice 8(3): 405–417.

    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.R. (2013) ‘Framing student engagement in higher education’, Studies in Higher Education 38(5): 758–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J.A., Bridges, B.K. and Hayek, J.C. (2006). What Matters to Student Success: A Review of the Literature. Commissioned report for the national symposium on postsecondary student success: Spearheading a dialog on student success. Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative (NPEC).

  • Kuh, G.D. (2008) High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access To Them, and Why They Matter, Report from the American Association for Colleges and Universities.

  • Lasch, C. (1979) The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in the Age of Diminishing Expectations, London and New York: Norton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latane, B., Williams, K. and Harkins, B. (1979) ‘Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37(6): 822–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lester, D. (2013) A Review of the Student Engagement Literature, Focus on Colleges, Universities and Schools 7(1): 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, L. (2006) The Research Game in Academic Life, Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, K. (2006) ‘Neoliberalism and marketization: Implication for higher education’, European Educational Research Journal 5(1): 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlane, B. (2013) ‘The surveillance of learning: a critical analysis of university attendance policies’, Higher Education Quarterly 67(4): 358–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlane, B. (2015) ‘Student performativity in higher education: converting learning as a private space into a public performance’, Higher Education Research and Development 34(2): 338–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlane, B. (2016a) ‘The performative turn in the assessment of student learning: a rights perspective’, Teaching in Higher Education doi:10.1080/13562517.2016.1183623.

  • Macfarlane, B. (2016b) Freedom to Learn: The Threat to Student Academic Freedom and Why It Needs to be Reclaimed, New York and London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, S.J. (2001) ‘Alternative perspectives on the student experience: Alienation and engagement’, Studies in Higher Education 26(1): 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maringe, F. and Gibbs, P. (2009) Marketing Higher Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, A.C. and Kinzie, J. (2014) ‘Refocusing the Quality Discourse: The United States National Survey of Student Engagement’, in H. Coates and A.C. McCormick (eds.) Engaging University Students: International Insights from System-Wide Studies, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 13–30.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, K.J., Quinn, C, Marrington, A. and Clarke, J.A. (2012) ‘Good practice for enhancing the engagement and success of commencing students’, Higher Education 63(1): 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newswander, L.K. and M. Borrego (2009) ‘Engagement in two interdisciplinary graduate programs’, Higher Education 58(4): 551–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonnecke, B. and Preece, (2000) Lurker Demographics: Counting the Silent. In: T. Turner, G. Szwillus, M. Czerwinski, F. Peterno and S. Pemberton, Steven (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 2000 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference; 1–6 April, The Hague, The Netherlands. New York: ACM, pp. 73–80.

  • Oblinger, D.G. (2012) ‘Let’s talk analytics’, EDUCAUSE Review July/August: 10–13, http://er.educause.edu/articles/2012/7/lets-talk–analytics, accessed 29 November 2016.

  • Pascarella, E.T., Seifert, T.A. and Blaich, C. (2010) ‘How effective are the NSSE benchmarks in predicting important educational outcomes?’, Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 42(1): 16–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pigott, T.D., Valentine, J.C., Polanin, J.R., Williams, R.T. and Canada, D.D. (2013) ‘Outcome-Reporting Bias in Education Research’, Educational Researcher 42(8): 424–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, C. (1969) Freedom to Learn: A View of What Education Might Become, Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, N. (1990) Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D.R. (2010) ‘Fidelity as a precondition for integrity in grading academic achievement’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 35(6): 727–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slade, S. and Prinsloo, P. (2013) ‘Learning analytics: ethical issues and dilemmas’, American Behavioral Scientist 57(10): 1509–1528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sumsion, J. and Fleet, A. (1996) ‘Reflection: can we assess it? Should we assess it?’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 21(2): 121–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Trowler, V. (2015) ‘Negotiating Contestations and ‘Chaotic Conceptions’: Engaging ‘Non‐Traditional’ Students in Higher Education, Higher Education Quarterly 69(3): 295–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zepke, N. (2014a) ‘Student engagement research in higher education: Questioning an academic orthodoxy’, Teaching in Higher Education 19(6): 697–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zepke, N. (2014b) ‘What future for student engagement in neo-liberal times?’, Higher Education 69(4): 693–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zepke, N. (2015) ‘Student engagement research: thinking beyond the mainstream’, Higher Education Research and Development 34(6): 1311–1323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zepke, N. and Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement in post-compulsory education: A synthesis of research literature. A report prepared for the Teaching and Learning Research Initiative, Wellington. http://tlri.org.nz/sites/default/files/projects/9261-Literature-review.pdf, accessed 12 August 2016.

  • Zyngier, D. (2008) ‘(Re)conceptualising student engagement: Doing education not doing time’, Teaching and Teacher Education 24(7): 1765–1776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Southampton, Highfield Campus, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK

    Bruce Macfarlane & Michael Tomlinson

Authors
  1. Bruce Macfarlane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Tomlinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce Macfarlane.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Macfarlane, B., Tomlinson, M. Critiques of Student Engagement. High Educ Policy 30, 5–21 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0027-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0027-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation