The authors use Ryan and Deci’s (2000) Self-Determination Theory (SDT) to better understand how student motivation and engagement are linked combined with Schlechty’s Student Engagement Continuum to analyse the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on students’ different engagement types. The study seeks to understand which type of motivation – intrinsic or extrinsic – is more closely aligned to authentic student engagement as identified by Schlechty (2002, 2011). A qualitative research framework was adopted and data was collected from one elementary school class. According to Ryan and Deci’s SDT, the majority of students who indicated that their motivation type was either intrinsic or integrated regulated motivation also demonstrated that they were authentically engaged in their education (Schlechty, 2002, 2011). The students who preferred extrinsic motivation also showed ritual and retreatist forms of engagement and students demonstrating both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation showed authentic, ritual, retreatist and rebellious engagement. In line with findings by Zyngier (2008) in this particular study at least, when pedagogical reciprocity (Zyngier, 2011) was present, intrinsic motivation assisted authentic student engagement in learning, and that extrinsic motivation served to develop ritual engagement in students however, students who had both types of motivation showed different types of engagement in their learning.

This review provides a critical appraisal of the measurement of students’ social class and socioeconomic status (SES) in the context of widening higher education participation. Most assessments of social class and SES in higher education have focused on objective measurements based on the income, occupation, and education of students’ parents, and they have tended to overlook diversity among students based on factors such as age, ethnicity, indigeneity, and rurality. However, recent research in psychology and sociology has stressed the more subjective and intersectional nature of social class. The authors argue that it is important to consider subjective self-definitions of social class and SES alongside more traditional objective measures. The implications of this dual measurement approach for higher education research are discussed.

This article examines contemporary research and debates about pedagogies of engagement that challenge the traditional assumptions and understandings of engagement. Three contesting epistemological constructions of student engagement are identified and examined through the contesting and resisting voices of teachers and students. The article's research suggests that an empowering and resistant pedagogy can (re)conceive student engagement so that it achieves the twin goals of social justice and academic achievement.

The challenge of student engagement has been recognised as a serious issue in both Australian and Canadian education. This empirical and qualitative study seeks to understand the experiences of two groups of students; the first beginning their high school years and the second reflecting back on successful university and less than successful high school experiences. Students are traditionally objectified and omitted from the discourse on student engagement. Providing a forum for student voice in both continents, we compare and contrast the various and sometimes contested understandings of what an authentic or generative student engagement might mean for both school leadership and classroom practice. Adopting a critical pedagogical perspective, this descriptive article seeks to compare answers to the following question: How is engagement defined and enacted by students within these different environments?

This review of current research into at‐risk programmes serves to categorise and characterise existing programmes and to evaluate the contribution of these programmes to assisting students at risk from marginalised backgrounds. This characterisation questions the (sometimes) implicit assumptions and the consequences of those assumptions inherent in and behind these various accounts. Using as a lens the (various and varied) understandings of social justice and the goals of education, the author identifies three sometimes overlapping and sometimes contesting standpoints in relation to at‐risk students, characterised as instrumentalist or rational technical, social constructivist or individualist, and critical transformative or empowering. It is argued that a critical transformative understanding of risk may deliver improved outcomes for young people by challenging ‘the school context in which the young people are located’.