Student disengagement: is technology the problem or the solution?

 …  it is the disease of not listening, the malady of not marking, that I am troubled withal.

Falstaff in King Henry IV Part 2 (Act 1, Scene ii)

Falstaff in modern translation wittily refers to having the "not-paying-attention sickness". When we consider learning in the twenty-first century, teachers worldwide are well aware of such a problem. We grace it with the term "student disengagement". Is student disengagement increasing because of digital device usage? The potential distractions of device notifications are not currently reducing; McCoy (2016), in a survey of American college students in 2015, found they used digital devices for non-class activities for over 20% of class time, results which were an increase over a similar survey in 2013.

Sally Weale, writing in the UK Guardian (March 2018) cites Higher Education Statistics Agency statistics showing that 26,000 students in England, who began studying for their first degree in 2015, did not progress to a second year of study. We know from research evidence that engagement of students within their first year of undergraduate study is vital for continuing retention. We also know that patterns learned in full-time education at school contribute to the concept of self-efficacy and possibly learned helplessness, which influence engagement or disengagement in later study. A US Gallup poll in 2015 suggested that student disengagement increased as students got older, roughly doubling between 6th and 12th grade (Brenneman, 2016). Within a Higher Education context, the time frame for seeing a reduction in attendance at classes can be even shorter, dropping sharply after the first few weeks.

So our first problem is how to define the concept of student disengagement and then to consider whether such disengagement can be associated with current technology. A definition is far from clear in the literature. Balwant (2018), building on work definitions of engagement and disengagement from organisational behaviour literature, defines disengagement as "students’ simultaneous withdrawal of themselves and defence of their preferred self in displaying low activation behaviours that are characterised by physical, cognitive and emotional absence and passivity" (p. 398) although he advocates further conceptual work to achieve greater clarity on a concept which is not simply the opposite of student engagement.

The regular US National Survey of Student Engagement (2017)uses the following themes to discuss student engagement: academic challenge, learning with peers, experiences with faculty and the learning environment and it is to these themes we should return if we are trying to improve learning engagement through technology. But to consider for a moment the way disengagement is discussed, Earl, Taylor, Meijen, and Passfield (2017) produce empirical evidence in a study involving secondary school age children around both active and passive disengagement. Active disengagement is here seen as disruptive behaviour in class, whereas passive disengagement (which may in an HE context be associated with dropping class attendance) is discussed as avoidance of tasks and lack of contribution in class. The study proposes a link between psychological autonomy frustration and active disengagement, and a link between competence need frustration with passive disengagement.

So does this mean that passive disengagement may be reduced if teachers offer greater developmental support of competence and more evidence to students of achievement? Logic suggests that if students’ perceptions of self-efficacy and competence are low, they are more likely to passively disengage, more likely to contribute poorly to learning tasks, showing low vitality and disinterest and complete the cycle by producing lower results or simply dropping out. Self-determination theory (Deci, 1971) underpins this idea, especially the needs for competence and autonomy, and the interplay between behavioural, cognitive and emotional aspects of engagement are evident. Learning technology, particularly pedagogic designs which use digital tools to encourage feedback on achievement and promote interest and peer working, could help here. As suggested by Eccles (2016, p. 72), if we wish to improve engagement this would require an integrated approach to concentration, interest and enjoyment. And that is just what is prescribed in games-based learning according to Hamari et al. (2016). They consider that engagement is closely associated with flow and involves complete absorption in a task, leaving no room for distractions (p. 171). So we begin to see a sense in which learning technology becomes part of the solution rather than the problem of student disengagement. If we can use such tools to increase academic challenge, learning with peers, relationships and communication with faculty and a learning environment which fits digitally engaged learners, we stand a chance of reducing passive disengagement, and ultimately tackling attendance, albeit virtual attendance some of the time.

The papers in this issue demonstrate a range of ways to enhance student engagement through the use of learning technology. These include game-based learning, collaborative peer learning, adaptive learning and enquiry-based learning and aim to tackle self-enhancement and the needs of low achievers in relation to the competence and autonomy needs of learners. These examples relate directly to the pressing need to address student disengagement, using pedagogic and psychological concepts to drive the use of learning technology.