There are certain buzzwords that appear in discussions and debates about teaching and learning: “engagement” is one that often pops up.
Most teachers agree that “boosting engagement” sounds like a good idea, but fewer are clear on exactly what it is and how we go about developing it.
First then, we should ask: do we have a shared understanding of the term “engagement”? Second, we should consider: is it essential for pupil progress or is it just another “poor proxy for learning” (to quote Professor Rob Coe)?
We could benefit from discussing these questions with colleagues and being more precise - defining what we mean by “engagement” and specifying what behaviours we expect from pupils and teachers alike. If we can go on to define engagement in action, we may get closer to making the idea meaningful.
Like many debates in education - along with interpretations of research - issues begin with slippery terminology.
More by Alex Quigley:
Alexander Astin, back in 1984, helpfully defined “engagement” as “the amount of physical and psychological energy a student devotes to their academic experience”.
And yet, for many teaching colleagues, the notion is still fuzzy. It quickly becomes interchangeable with other, blurred ideas, such as confidence, interest, fun, focus or flow. We end up using lots of inspirational words but prove to be none the wiser.
I’d contend that engagement isn’t really a helpful goal for learning. Instead, it is a desirable outcome that is most common when pupils experience success. For instance, it may be the success of understanding a hard task, such as grappling with glacial landforms in geography.
With this clarification, we may stop pursuing the “physical energy” that pupils might display, because while pupils may be moving and chatting animatedly - being visibly engaged - they may not actually be learning any more than if they were writing away in golden silence.
Let’s take engagement in reading as an example. How might we try to boost engagement in reading books? It is common to try to engineer engagement by referring to our pupils’ world. For instance, we might focus on reading song lyrics from a recent hit rather than grappling with a tricky Shakespearean sonnet, in the hopes of inspiring lots of animated debate.
But too often, such animated engagement fizzles out. And when faced with the complex language of Shakespeare, failure bursts the bubble of ephemeral engagement. We may hit the mark with instant and visible engagement but miss the point when it comes to enduring engagement that leads to learning.
Sustained engagement in reading is only really sustained if a pupil is skilled and knowledgeable enough to read with ease every time. It is the invisible stuff of “psychological energy”, and that is bred by success. For avid readers, everything they read can be engaging because they read skilfully.
So, let’s avoid getting engagement all wrong and secure a shared recognition that engagement may be physical and visible but also psychological and invisible, too.
