(Re) conceiving Student Engagement: What the Students Say They Want. Putting Young People at the Centre of the Conversation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The challenge of student engagement has been recognised as a serious issue, especially in the middle years of schooling in Australian education. This qualitative study seeks to understand the experiences of one group of students beginning their high school years. Students are often left out of the discourse on student engagement. Traditionally they are objectified and omitted from the dialogue because often they are viewed as products of formal education systems. By giving voice to students, I compare and contrast the various and contested understandings of authentic or generative aspects of student engagement and what these might mean for classroom practice. I suggest that pedagogical practices that connect to students’ lives are too often ignored but necessary elements of teacher pedagogy for all students, particularly, those from disadvantaged and minority backgrounds. I identify and examine three contesting epistemological constructs of student engagement in order to answer three interrelated questions: (i) What are the most worthwile conceptions of engagement? (ii) What are the purposes of engagement? (iii) Who benefits (and who is excluded) from these purposes? I conclude that not all forms of student engagement are equal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it