‘Student engagement’ and the tyranny of participation

References

• Archer, M. 2003. Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Archer, M. 2007. Making Our Way Through the World: Human Reflexivity and Social Mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bartlett, L., and D. Holland. 2002. “Theorizing the Space of Literacy Practices.” Ways of Knowing 2(1): 10–22.
   Google Scholar
• Bloom, B. ed. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. New York: D McKay & Co.
   Google Scholar
• Blommaert, J. 2005. Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coates, H. 2007. “A Model of Online and General Campus-Based Student Engagement.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 32(2): 121–141.
   Google Scholar
• Coates, H. 2010. “Development of the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE).” Higher Education 60(1): 1–17. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9281-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donati, P. 2011. Relational Sociology: A New Paradigm for the Social Sciences. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ehrlich, S. 2012. “Text Trajectories: Legal Discourses and Gendered Inequalities.” Applied Linguistics Review 3(1): 47–73. doi:10.1515/applirev-2012-0003.
   Google Scholar
• Fenwick, T., R.Edwards, and P. Sawchuk. 2011. Emerging Approaches to Educational Research: Tracing the Sociomaterial. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Folley, D. 2009. “The Lecture Is Dead Long Live the e-lecture. The Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on E-Learning, University of Bari, Italy 29th–30th October, 204–211.
   Google Scholar
• Gourlay, L. 2011. “New Lecturers and the Myth of Communities of Practice.” Studies in Continuing Education 33(1): 67–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gourlay, L. 2013. “Cyborg Ontologies and the Lecturer's Voice: A Posthuman Reading of the ‘face-to-face’.” Learning, Media and Technology 37(2): 198–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gourlay, L., M.Hamilton, and M. Lea. 2013. “Textual Practices in the New Media Digital Landscape: Messing with Digital Literacies.” Research in Learning Technology 21 (4): article 21438.
   Google Scholar
• Gourlay, L., and M. Oliver. 2013. “Beyond ‘the Social’: Digital Literacies as Sociomaterial Practice.” In Literacy in the Digital University: Learning as Social Practice in a Digital World, edited by R. Goodfellow and M. Lea, 79–94. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hayles, K. 2012. How We Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogenesis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Holland, D., W. Lachicotte, D. Skinner, and C. Calin. 1998. Identity and Agency in Cultural Worlds. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ivanic, R. 1998. Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Kahn, P. 2013. “Theorising Student Engagement in Higher Education.” British Educational Research Journal 40(6): 1005–1018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kandiko, C. 2008. “Student Engagement in Two Countries: A Comparative Study Using National Survey of Student Engagement Data.” Journal of Institutional Research 14(1): 71–86.
   Google Scholar
• Kell, C. 2006. “Crossing the Margins: Literacy, Semiotics and the Recontextualisation of Meanings.” In Travel Notes from the New Literacy Studies: Instances of Practice, edited by K. Pahl and J. Rowsell, 147–171. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Kember, D. 2000. “Misconceptions about the Learning Approaches, Motivation and Study Practices of Asian Students.” Higher Education 40 (1): 99–121. doi:10.1023/A:1004036826490.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kittler, F. 2004. “Universities: Wet, Hard, Soft and Harder.” Critical Inquiry 31(1): 244–255. doi:10.1086/427310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kothari, U. 2001. “Power, Knowledge and Social Control in Participatory Development.” In Participation: The New Tyranny?, edited by B. Cooke and U. Kothari, 139–152. London: Zed Books.
   Google Scholar
• Kuh, G. D. 2009. “The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual and Empirical Foundations.” New Directions for Institutional Research 2009 (141): 5–20. doi:10.1002/ir.283.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lea, M. 2005. “‘Communities of Practice’ in Higher Education: Useful Heuristic or Educational Model?” In Beyond Communities of Practice, edited by D. Bartonand K. Usting, 180–197. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lea, M. R., and B. V. Street. 1998. “Student Writing in Higher Education: An Academic Literacies Approach.” Studies in Higher Education 23(2): 157–172. doi:10.1080/03075079812331380364.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leander, K. M., and J. F. Lovorn. 2006. “Literacy Networks: Following the Circulation of Texts, Bodies and Texts in the Schooling and Online Gaming of One Youth.” Cognition and Instruction 24(3): 291–340. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2403_1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lillis, T. 2001. Student Writing: Access, Regulation, Desire. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Race, P. 1999. 2000 Tips for Lecturers. London: Kogan Page.
   Google Scholar
• Silverstein, M., and G. Urban, eds. 1996. Natural Histories of Discourse. London: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Trowler, P. 1998. Academics Responding to Change: New Higher Education Frameworks and Academic Cultures. Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE.
   Google Scholar
• Trowler, V. 2010. Student Engagement Literature Review. The Higher Education Academy. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/StudentEngagementLiteratureReview_1.pdf.
   Google Scholar