One of the boys: constructions of disengagement and criteria for being a successful student

Abstract

The article discusses how a peer group culture in the school setting, embedded in conflicting fields of work and education, co-constructs student disengagement. Disengagement is traditionally linked with dropout and engagement with completion, but the study shows that this relation is not so linear. The data are based on a field study, where the author was enrolled as a student in the car mechanic program in order to gain insight into the cultural and relational dynamics of dropping out through an autoethnographical approach. Awareness of the transformations that took place was used to understand the (in)appropriate ways of becoming a car mechanic student. The study reveals discrepancies in different criteria for being successful between students, teachers, and the workplaces. This points to the need to understand disengagement as context dependent and socially regulated, rather than as a function of the individual’s attributes.

Keywords:

• disengagement
• autoethnography
• dropout
• vocational educational training
• peer group culture

Notes

1. http://nynordiskskole.dk/Service/New-Nordic-School/~/media/NORDISK/Filer/PDF12/120921%20NNS%20manifest%20english.ashx.

2. http://www.ats.dk/docs/AARHUS%20TECH%2020Handlingsplan%20for%20øget%20gennemførelse%202012.pdf.

3. Formal as opposed to informal is often used in cognitive theories of learning. This division has been criticized for being a value-laden continuation of the dualism in Western thinking by the cultural historical activity theory (e.g. Cole & Scribner, 1981; Luria, 1976; Scribner & Cole, 1973; Vygotsky, 1978) and situated learning (e.g. Lave, 2011; Lave & Wenger, 1991). In practice, the formal and informal are often interrelated and contain attributes of both. When the concepts are used in this paper, they do not refer to a sharp distinction but are used as a way to grasp the differences between the official/ institutional and the relational/cultural evaluation criteria and ways of gaining recognition that shape the students’ engagement.

4. Expressions used by the students themselves.

5. The terminology of ethnic identity categories is complex. Commonly used terms in public media are “bilingual,” “non-western,” “foreigner,” “new-Danish,” “first, second, third generation immigrants,” “descendants,” etc. but such terms have many negative connotations, not least implying a hierarchical order where being “Danish” is considered neutral and not being “ethnic.” I have instead chosen to use the terms “ethnic minority” and “ethnic majority,” which are officially accepted and underline how ethnicity is based on social boundaries. There are restrictions to keep in mind with these terms as well, since they refer to collectives and not individuals, with the risk of presenting different people as “the same” (see Staunæs [2004] for a further discussion of “doing sameness” in a Danish context).

6. “Drop out” covers many different reasons for students’ non-completion, from being enrolled or not showing up to not being able to find an apprenticeship.