EXCURSUS SOBRE LA "VERWINDUNG"

Over  recent  years,  the  Faculty  of  Education  at  University  has  focussed  on  student  engagement  as  a   significant  issue  in  response  to  the  literature  linking  higher  levels  of  engagement  with  improved   student  learning  outcomes.  The  need  to  engage  students  in  their  learning  and  professional  

development  has  been  a  central  part  of  ongoing  Faculty  discussions  (Pittaway,  2012).  The  

institutionally  nominated  AUSSE  had  also  been  administered  to  Teacher  Education  students  over  a   number  of  years.  In  spite  of  this  level  of  activity  in  the  Faculty,  my  research  identified  that  tutors’   understandings  of  engagement  still  varied  as  much  as  it  did  for  students.  As  was  the  case  for  student   interviews,  tutors  were  provided  the  opportunity  to  provide  their  definitions  or  understandings  of   engagement  early  in  their  interview.  While  some  participant  tutors  acknowledged  the  significance  of   their  own  role  in  student  engagement,  in  general,  they  placed  greater  emphasis  and  the  responsibility   of  being  engaged  onto  the  student.  This  section  overviews  and  contextualises  their  initial  responses.    

In  his  response  to  the  question  about  engagement  for  distance  online  students,  James  began  by   linking  engagement  directly  to  student  communication  and  their  active  participation  in  learning   activities  which  he  as  Unit  Coordinator  has  developed:  well  in  the  online  environment,  engagement  to  me   is  that  students  are  actively  undertaking  the  range  of  learning  tasks  that’s  structured  into  the  unit;  and  actively   communicating  with  other  students  in  the  unit  and  tutors;  not  just  doing  the  assessment  tasks.  His  

description  emphasises  student  action,  placing  responsibility  for  their  engagement  with  students.   Whether  it  be  academic  activity  or  communication,  the  inference  that  can  be  drawn  from  his  response   is  that  he  has  provided  the  environment  within  which  students  can  take  the  initiative  to  demonstrate   engagement.  

James  also  expressed  his  belief  in  a  link  between  problems  with  engagement  and  attrition:  the   dropout  rate  in  this  unit,  and  I  think  that  there’s  a  serious  engagement  problem  in  this  Faculty,  at  the  moment.   Hence  they’ve  had  to  set  up  an  Engagement/  Student  Engagement  Officer,  because  I  think  the  dropout  rate’s   quite  high.  This  perception  resonates  with  the  literature  reviewed  in  Chapter  Two  which  identified  a   link  between  lack  of  engagement  and  the  probability  of  withdrawing  from  study.  

The  importance  of  student  activity  and  involvement  in  the  unit  was  also  a  key  aspect  of   engagement  for  Albert.  However,  in  his  definition  he  focused  on  academic  activity  rather  than   communicating  with  others:  I’ve  um  translated  that  [engagement]  into  practice.  Engagement  for  me  is  the   degree  to  which  the  student  passes  the  four  critical  questions  every  week  in  my  unit.  Albert’s  pragmatic  view  

of  student  engagement  was  represented  in  his  unit’s  design  in  which  he  expected  students’  adherence   to  the  established  processes  embedded  in  the  unit.  For  Albert,  student  engagement  focussed  on  their   interaction  with  the  content  of  the  unit,  to  which  he  expected  students  spend  specific  amounts  of  time   involving  themselves.  Albert  understood,  however,  that  this  amount  of  time  might  not  be  the  actual   amount  of  time  students  engaged  with  the  unit:  of  course  there’s  that  tension  between  the  lecturer  who  is   making  the  assumption  or  making  the  explicit  announcement  at  the  beginning  of  the  course;  this  will  require  10   hours  of  engagement  every  week  ...  [and]  the  response  from  a  student  who  is  patently  not  doing  the  ten  hours  of   engagement  and  not  expecting  to  have  to  do  that.  Albert  measured  engagement  in  hours  spent  in  contact   with  the  unit,  capped  off  with  students  answering  the  four  critical  questions.  As  Albert  described  how   the  unit  worked,  he  indicated  that  some  latitude  in  the  time  was  allowed  for  students  to  complete  the   critical  questions.  Successful  completion  of  the  critical  questions  was  a  pivotal  component  of  the   evidence  of  engagement.  He  made  no  reference  to  a  Faculty  position  on,  or  definition  of  engagement;   these  were  the  only  requirements  he  articulated  for  the  student  to  demonstrate  engagement.    

Whilst  neither  Albert  nor  James  had  knowledge  of  the  Faculty’s  position  on  student  

engagement,  Charles  indicated  that  he  had  thought  through  what  it  meant  for  his  teaching  practice.   He  emphasised  that  his  own  definition  aligned  or  resonated  with  the  Faculty’s  framework  and  was   able  to  name  each  of  its  elements:  I  haven’t  developed  a  strong  view.  Mine  has  been  fairly  simplistic,  but  I  do   resonate  with  the  Faculty’s  engagement  framework;  [...]  which  involves  intellectual,  social,  personal,  academic   and  professional.  They’re  the  five.  He  acknowledged  that  there  was  more  to  students  being  engaged  than   just  interacting  with  the  content;  his  definition  of  student  engagement  relied  less  on  the  process  and   unit  content  than  on  the  students’  attitudes  and  dispositions  to  learning:  So  I  can  appreciate  that,  I   suppose  at  a  basic  level  I  would  understand  engagement  to  be  a  sense  of  motivation  to  be  involved  and  to  be   active  in  one’s  learning.    

Even  with  his,  self-­‐‑confessed  simplistic  view  of  engagement,  Charles  noted  some  important   indicators  of  engagement  for  him:    

When  students  support  each  other,  so  that  they  begin  to  take  the  role  of  facilitator  as  well  as  the   tutor  does,  so  they  have  a  shared  sense  of  ownership  of  what’s  happening.  So  they  might,  even   though  I  might  be  fairly  quick  most  of  the  time  to  get  in  and  respond  to  students’  queries,  um,   peers  might  do  it  themselves.  They  might  support  each  other,  they  might  provide  links  to  other   materials  for  their  assignments,  I  might  notice  that  they  um  are  exchanging  emails  or  phone   numbers  or  setting  up  study  groups  so  that  they’re  taking  leadership,  um  that  they’re  really   taking  ownership  of  the  learning  environment.  And  that  to  me  is  being  engaged.  So  it’s  not  just   engaged  with  the  content  […]  that’s  what  I  would  see  as  being  evidence  of  real  engagement.     Charles  was  encouraged  by  the  fact  that  in  his  unit,  engagement  which  might  be  summarised  as   involvement,  interaction,  reciprocity  and  connectedness,  were  student  initiated  and  maintained.  He   also  was  more  sanguine  than  James  about  where  and  how  these  activities  happened:  I  think  that  we   would  love  to  think  that  our  students  were  getting  together  over  coffee,  or  at  each  other’s  houses  or  online  or   through  whatever  means  they  can,  and  that  what  we’re  doing  means  something  to  their  lives.  With  

involvement  being  one  of  the  themes  arising  from  student  perceptions  of  engagement,  some   alignment  with  their  understanding  began  to  emerge  for  me.  

In  a  similar  manner  to  Charles,  Connor  interpreted  engagement  in  terms  of  students’  

perceptions  and  interactions  rather  than  their  working  according  to  unit  and  organisational  structure   and  requirements  or  achieving  particular  learning  outcomes.  Connor  was  positive  about  a  broader   ranging  student  dialogue,  that  is,  students  communicating  with  each  other  and  assisting  each  other  in   their  studies:  Engagement  is  when  they  feel  involved  in  what’s  going  on.  They  feel  connected,  and  I  think  when   those  two  things  happen,  they’re  going  to  contribute  and  they’re  going  to,  hopefully,  feel  like  what  they  

contribute  is  valued.  As  well  as  aligning  with  student  themes  of  connectedness  and  involvement,   Charles  referred  to  the  importance  of  reciprocity  through  hinting  at  a  response  to  let  students  know   that  their  effort  is  valued.  He  underlined  this  importance  of  connectedness  and  reciprocity  through   observing  that:  one  of  the  things  that  I  found  as  I  sort  of  progressed  through  this  unit,  this  semester,  was  that   um,  they  were  really  happy  to  chat  to  each  other  and  help  each  other  out.    

Emma’s  initial  response  to  a  question  about  indicators  of  student  engagement  was  grounded  in   the  context  of  the  face-­‐‑to-­‐‑face  environment  and  hence  related  primarily  to  the  corporeal.  When  I   sought  clarification,  specifically  regarding  the  online  experience,  she  replied:    

Oh,  well  the  obvious  indicators  I  guess,  although  it  doesn’t  necessarily  mean  so,  but  the  overt   indicators  would  be  their  engagement  online.  Whether  or  not  they  complete  tasks  when  they’re   required.  Whether  or  not  they  respond  to  other  students  online,  because  that’s  their  virtual   world  and  therefore  those  expectations  are  clearly  laid  out  for  them.  So  if  they’re  not  engaging   in  those  things  then  one  would  assume  that  they’re  not  engaging  in  learning.  Otherwise  they   would  be  doing  what  was  expected  of  them.  

While  Emma  seemed  to  find  it  more  difficult  than  the  other  tutors  to  describe  engagement  in  an   online  environment,  the  position  she  took  resonated  somewhat  with  the  understandings  provided  by   James  and  Albert,  as  her  construction  focussed  on  students  completing  assigned  tasks.  She  did,   however,  also  incorporate  aspects  of  engagement  similar  to  those  articulated  by  Charles  and  Connor;   students  communicating  with  their  peers  and  responding  in  discussion  groups;  that  is,  doing  what   was  expected  and  communicated  through  their  unit  materials.  Student  engagement  online  was   indicated  by  compliance  with  the  unit  structure,  processes  and  articulated  unit  

expectations/requirements  -­‐‑  what  was  being  expected  of  them.  

In  a  manner  similar  to  students,  tutors  had  varying  perceptions  of  student  engagement;  some   were  more  process  and  content-­‐‑oriented,  some  more  student  and  relationship-­‐‑oriented.  While   diversity  of  opinion  is  neither  inherently  good  nor  bad,  student  participants  distinguished  between   these  orientations  and  associated  them  with  the  respective  tutors  they  experienced  during  their   studies.