Reflection four
.png)
Artefact:
The article ‘Student Engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success’ by Kahu and Nelson (2018) presented a well-rounded discussion of current contributing and limiting factors to student success. The article was published fairly recently (within the last five years), and the majority of its sources were published within the last 20 years, which makes this still a current relevant contribution to educational discourse in this space, although it remains extant that the rate of development in this space is fast moving.
My general impression of the article is that is resonates with my current conceptions around student factors in education, but provides an additional framework for looking at what the authors call the ‘Educational Interface’ which encapsulates self-efficacy, emotions, belonging and wellbeing, as well as emotional, cognitive and behavioral considerations. In simple terms, the article discusses the complexities of the student experience comprising more than just their engagement, but also all of the elements within the interface. This idea has some prominence for other similar educational theories, such as constructivism whereby social interaction and bringing together learners’ prior knowledge and experience with new information are key to learning.
Working in the NZDF I work alongside educators and learners alike who come from diverse backgrounds within the organization (such as their service, trade, rank, training, experience, or service culture) as well as outside of the organization (such as heritage, culture, socioeconomic status, norms or experiences). Being able to consider the diverse backgrounds of these learners is a critical element in working with these personnel, in particular within the education space. This is something that is so often missed when analyzing the reasons behind failure rates or personnel withdrawing from service.
One question I have after reading this article is how this could be used in online or blended learning environments. While there are a number of tools that can be used to determine learner backgrounds before a period of learning starts (such as a survey or interview), how could this be applied to learning online or with digital technologies?
This task required that we read, review and reflect on one of two specified articles - the one I chose to review was 'Student Engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success' by Kahu and Nelson (2018). The review questions were geared at encouraging us to critically evaluate the source for things such as balance, applicability, and currency, as well as encourage reflection against own practice.
The article presented a current overview of the factors which influence student engagement, with the majority of the sources being published within the last 20 years, and themes which are reflected across other relevant educational theories - such as constructivism, whereby the social interactions as well as the experiences that learners bring are essential to the learning process, and places emphasis on the influence that elements such as culture and society have on the learning (Ng, 2015). The article resonated with my current ideas of student factors in success and engagement, but encouraged me to think more deeply on the impact of these factors as well as the range of factors which interplay in students' motivation. Student engagement theory provides an effective frame for looking at student success and retention (Kahu & Nelson, 2018). Student engagement expands on Astin's (1984) ideas about student involvement, in which an educators focus shifts from what they do, to an emphasis on what the learner is doing, and how motivated they are through the learning process. The articles by Kahu & Nelson (2018) and Astin (1984) add to the literature by validifying the relevance of understanding the student experience and the factors which influence learner motivation and engagement. It also reinforces the need to consider student and institutional factors in tandem when planning for student engagement - a key consideration also in my context.
On review of peer responses to this task, there were certainly some key themes:
- Consideration of the diversity of learners
- It is a conceptual framework, with questions outstanding on how it will look in practice
- Rejecting the deficit view of learners, instead considering them as culturally situated
A key point raised in peer responses was the inherent requirement this article places on creating a space whereby learners across all socio-economic and cultural groups can bring and celebrate their individual experiences and understanding. While this may work towards a more inclusive learning environment I would need to implement this carefully in NZDF training. Inherently, some courses allow more discussion and facilitation (such as in training to become an instructor), while some require a more procedural, rigid approach (such as training to conduct emergency drills on the NH-90 helicopter). Part of the roles and responsibilities of the instructor therefore are to consider carefully the content which it to be taught, in tandem with pedagogy - of particular reference - student engagement.
References:
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297–308.
Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student Engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research and Development, 37(1), 58-71. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197
Ng, W. (2015). New Digital Technology in Education: Conceptualizing professional learning for educators. Australia: Springer.
Small, L. (2023). Student Engagement [digital visualization on the internet] https://www.canva.com/design/DAFfnfGVgYU/gns1l0TPmr4J-xslr5DQ4w/edit