Context
|
My area of interest has always lain in the concept of student engagement. From my early days of teaching, my focus has been on ways to light the spark of interest and enjoyment in learning in all my students. Within the area of student engagement, there are several different definitions, indicators, facilitators, and outcomes. I have decided to focus my research on how relationships between students and their peers and students and teachers facilitate engagement. I am focusing on relationships because they are crucial for the development and support of student engagement (Li, 2017). I feel that it is very important that I clarify what exactly I mean when I use the term student engagement, what it looks like, what influences and leads to engagement, and what are the consequences of engagement so that there is no confusion around what I mean when I use the term. Like all ‘loaded’ words, engagement means different things to different people and I want to be very transparent about how I am using the term as this will be guiding my research and methodology.
Student engagement is important to me for several reasons. The first of these is that I was personally, seldom engaged in school, even though I was good at it as demonstrated by consistent high marks in most subject areas throughout high school. Occasionally, something engaging would come along and I would dive right in. In grade ten, our Computer Science teacher recognized that a bunch of us were way beyond the rest of the class and he allowed us to create any type of program we wanted. I spent months creating a computer version of a board game. I ate, slept, and dreamed computer code. I skipped other classes so I could work in the lab. I refused to accept anything other than a perfect working game. I printed off and poured over hundreds of pages of code. In the end, I successfully created a working that reproduced the board game and worked flawlessly. It was one of the rare times when I can definitively say that I was engaged in school and it was due to a perfect example of project based learning and this was 1984. The teacher had set us a task over which we, not him, had almost complete autonomy. There were unforeseen and unintended consequences. I was completely absorbed by every aspect of the assignment and there was final product that was 100% complete. My level of effort was not driven by the desire for a mark but for a desire for a monument to my programming ability and it had to be perfect. I will be referring to this anecdote throughout this chapter. Student engagement is also important to me because as a teacher, my job has been to educate all my students, not just the few students who are academically and behaviorally inclined to succeed in the dominant model of schooling that has existed since schools first became the norm. Education is for all students regardless of their predilections. I do not believe it is the job of the student to fit the school. They are not the ones who are being paid. It is the job of the school to match the student. This became even more important and evident to me when I was assigned to an inner-city community school where most of my students did not have the advantages of a privileged upbringing and issues of marginalization were part of their daily lives. Education is necessary for all young people to start to realize their full potential and that was no different for my inner-city students. Where students of privilege might be willing, or expected, or supported by home, into at least being compliant in non-engaging schooling, students in a community school may not have the same privileged support. The daily challenges that many of them face can mean that any artificial forms of extrinsic motivations are likely to fail. These students, like all students, deserve engagement. The third reason that I am so caught up with engagement is that it is not hard to do. School has been stuck in the dominant model of lectures and control for so long and for so many reasons, including inertia, and in today’s world with rapid and ever changing technology and options, there is no excuse. It is not difficult to create engaging educational opportunities for students. Overall, it does not require more resources or more time. All it requires is a shift in the way teachers view the act of schooling. |
Definitions
|
As engagement is in the eye of the beholder and it means different things to different people, I am going to outline the different aspects of student engagement that I agree with which will include a discussion of the different indicators that typically mean that aspect of engagement is occurring. These indicators also represent the immediate outcomes of that area of engagement.
|
Multi-Faceted
|
The first aspect of student engagement that I agree with is that the idea of student engagement is multi-faceted with different areas and aspects of engagement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld & Paris, 2004; Finn & Zimmer, 2012; Skinner & Pitzer, 2012). These aspects do not act in isolation from each other, but in fact, affect and influence each other (Fredricks et al., 2004). Because these areas, while they influence each other, are separate, a student can have varying levels of engagement in each one (Fredricks et al., 2004). The three commonly talked about areas of engagement are behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement.
|
Behavioral Engagement
|
Behavioral engagement is viewed by many as sort of a bare minimum necessity to get any work done in school, engaging or otherwise (Finn & Zimmer, 2012). Behavioral engagement represents the behavior necessary to get by and be successful in school. The student follows the commonly accepts standards of behavior that the school, teacher, and their classmates require of them to attend school (Fredricks et al., 2004). This includes positive behavior, participating in class and in school activities, finishing school work, paying attention, attending classes, and being punctual. Fredricks et al. (2004) go so far as to include “effort, persistence, concentration” (p. 62) as indicators of behavioral engagement where others have reserved those attributes for other aspects of engagement (Finn & Zimmer, 2012). Skinner & Pitzer (2012) include “perseverance in the face of obstacles and difficulties” (p. 24) in with behavioral engagement. I would argue that such an indicator, or outcome, would be on the deeper end of a behavioral engagement continuum. One caution Fredricks et al. (2004) share is that students who look engaged, at least behaviorally, might not be paying attention to the work at all and students who like they are not, maybe actually more engaged.
Some authors have broken behavioral engagement down into two subsets, social engagement and academic engagement (Finn & Zimmer, 2012). Social engagement refers to how much the student follows the commonly accepts rules of behavior like punctuality, attendance, participating and acting acceptably with classmates and teachers (Finn & Zimmer, 2012). Academic engagement refers to all the things a student must do to perform academically like pay attention and get the work done (Finn & Zimmer, 2012). Finn & Zimmer (2012) and Fredricks et al. (2004) also define behavioral engagement as not doing those things that are the actions of the dis-engaged like cutting classes, not participating, and not interfering with other students. Not misbehaving means a student could be behaviorally engaged. Throughout most of my schooling, I would say that I as relatively behaviorally engaged but less so in high school than in elementary school. I attended school. I acted appropriately in class, and school, most of the time. I paid attention and participated enough to succeed. I was not so behaviorally engaged in most of my schooling to be really focused and attentive except in the case of my computer science project. Throughout the course of that project, I was so engaged in computer science, and disengaged in other classes, that I would skip those other classes so that I could sneak in to the computer lab and work on my project. While I was certainly behaviorally engaged in computer science, I was not as engaged in other subject areas. |
Cognitive Engagement
|
Cognitive engagement is the aspect concerned with the level of effort and engagement in the work of learning. It involves a focus on learning goals as compared to achievement or performance goals (Fredricks et al., 2004). It is “a willingness to go beyond what is required” (Skinner & Pitzer, 2012, p. 24). Students who are cognitively engaged, seek out challenging tasks as they want to go beyond minimum standards and they are well supported and prepared to handle failure (Fredricks et al., 2004). They ask for clarification, look at more material than is required and use self-regulation to guide learning (Finn & Zimmer, 2012). Finn & Zimmer (2012) feel that student perseverance is an indicator of cognitive engagement.
Students who are cognitively engaged are not in it for the marks or extrinsic reward. They are in it for themselves and the personal challenge and drive that they receive from it. I was cognitively engaged in my computer science project. I could have cared less about any grade that might occur because of my performance and the final product. The goal I tackled was far beyond what my teacher had asked for or even desired. More than once, he questioned me about the scope of what I had chosen to do. For the duration of this project, I was cognitively engaged. |
Affective or Emotional Engagement
|
Affective or emotional engagement refers to a feeling of belonging and identification with the school, classroom, staff, and peers (Finn & Zimmer, 2012; Fredricks et al., 2004). The student can recognize and value the things that the school gives to them (Finn & Zimmer, 2012), feel good about and value success in school related outcomes, and feel that they are personally crucial to the school (Fredricks et al., 2004). Fredricks et al. (2004) refers to this aspect as “emotional engagement” (p. 63) and Skinner & Pitzer (2012) calls it the “emotional” (p. 24) dimension. Skinner & Pitzer (2012) describes emotional engagement as “enthusiasm, enjoyment, fun, and satisfaction” (p. 24). The better the quality of the relationships between students, and students and staff, the greater the affective engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004) and the more likely the other aspects of engagement are to occur and increase as well (Finn & Zimmer, 2012). In fact, Finn & Zimmer (2012) point out that higher affective or emotional engagement can incentivize appropriate behavior and participation in students who might not be so inclined otherwise. In other words, having high emotional engagement can inoculate students from schooling that may be otherwise dis-engaging.
I was almost never emotionally engaged by the various schools that I attended. I do remember a few elementary teachers who positively impacted my sense of belonging but none in high school. While I was deeply and personally engaged in the computer science project, I was not emotionally connected in any way by my peers, the teacher, the class, or the school. If anything, it reinforced my feeling of being the ‘other’ by how disconnected I became through the project because of the project being a solo endeavor with zero peer collaboration. |
Other Ways of Defining Engagement
|
These three aspects of engagement: behavioral, cognitive, and emotional are referred to by many other researchers of engagement (Lawson, 2017; Lee, 2013; National Research Council, 2004; Shernoff, Kelly, Tonks, & Anderson, 2016) but there a couple of other models that I would like to share that will help to refine the lens that I am looking through when I use the term student engagement.
|
Schlechty's Model of Engagement
|
The first of these comes from Schlechty (2011) who describes engaged students as attentive, committed, persistent and valuing. Attentive is related to behavioral and academic engagement and is when students are paying attention and focused on the tasks that make up the work of school (Schlechty, 2011). Committed is related to cognitive engagement and is when students choose, without coercion, to use their time, attention, and effort to do what is needed to complete the work (Schlechty, 2011). Persistence is related to behavioral and cognitive engagement and is when the student perseveres through challenges (Schlechty, 2011). The fourth component of Schlechty’s (2001) model is valuing which is related to affective or emotional engagement and is when the student agrees that there is value in the task. Schlechty (2011) agrees with Fredricks et al. (2004) that engagement is multi-faceted but takes it one level further in that all four components must be present or the student is not really engaged.
|
Schlecty's Engagement Continuum
|
Schlechty (2011) outlines a continuum with student engagement on one end and rebellion on the other end. In the highest level of Schlechty’s (2011) continuum of engagement, all four of the components of attention, commitment, persistence, and value exist in large quantities. The first step away from engagement, “strategic compliance” (Schlechty, 2011, p. 15) occurs when a student is doing the work to get a reward like a grade or other form of extrinsic motivation. The next step, “ritual compliance” (Schlechty, 2011, p. 15) seems to sit on the fulcrum of the continuum and has the student only going through the motions of schooling. They are not really motivated by the rewards but are still trying to avoid getting in trouble. “Retreatism” (Schlechty, 2011, p. 15) is exactly as it sounds. The student is on their way to being done with school. They are not really doing anything but avoiding being noticed. A student who is retreating is just trying to stay under the radar and out of trouble. The final stage of “rebellion” (Schlechty, 2011, p. 15) happens when the student is not doing the work and is willing, perhaps seeking, to get into trouble over it.
I spent most my time in school being at the strategically compliant stage and as a result, I was successful in the act of being schooled if grades and grade point average are the measurement tool. As Schlechty (2011) points out, when there is an emphasis on grading and standardized tests, strategic compliance is all students need, and perhaps, all schools want. For my computer science project, there is no doubt in my mind, that Schlechty would have declared me as engaged as it was obvious to everyone, teachers, peers, and family, that I was attentive, committed, persistent and valuing everything about what I was doing to accomplish my goal. |
Flow
|
This leads me to what I consider to be the pinnacle of student engagement, flow, which Shernoff et al. (2016) defines as “a state of optimal experience characterized by intense concentration and heightened interest in intrinsically enjoyable activities” (p. 53). Experiences that induce flow are ones that cause a person to lose an awareness of time passing, have a feeling of control over their own actions, experience serious focus, and where the experience is personally satisfying with the final objective existing as more of an excuse to have the experience than a necessity (Csikszentmihalyi, Abuhamdeh, & Nakamura, 2014). For such flow to occur, it is necessary that the challenge match the individual’s skill level or a little higher, there are clear goals that make sense, the experience provides timely and specific feedback, and that there is a feeling that person is up to the task (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 2014).
My computer game project stands out as possibly the only time that I experienced flow in the classroom. I have experienced it numerous times outside of schooling but I can only recall the one instance inside school. That project consumed me and I enjoyed every minute of it. I can remember printing hundreds of pages of code so I could pour over it to find the one little glitch that kept popping up. When the project was complete and I handed in to my teacher, I remember being mentally, physically, and emotionally exhausted and almost affront that my ‘baby’ was now going to be evaluated and given a final grade. I already knew what I had accomplished. I did not need my teacher to tell me. That was flow. That was student engagement. |
Bibliography |
Finn, J. & Zimmer, K. (2012). Student Engagement: What Is It? Why Does It Matter. In S.L. Christenson, A.L. Reschly, C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 21-44). New York:NY, Springer.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59-109. Gordon, G. and Crabtree, S. (2006). Building engaged schools: Getting the most out of America’s classrooms. New York, NY: Gallup Press. Lawson, M. A. (2017). Commentary: Bridging student engagement research and practice. School Psychology International, 38(3). doi:10.1177/0143034317708010 Lee, J.-S. (2013). The Relationship Between Student Engagement and Academic Performance: Is It a Myth or Reality? The Journal of Educational Research, 107(3), 177–185. doi:10.1080/00220671.2013.807491 Li, Y. (2017). Teacher–Student Relationships, Student Engagement, and Academic Achievement for Non-Latino and Latino Youth. Adolescent Research Review, 1–50. doi:10.1007/s40894-017-0069-9 Csikszentmihalyi, M., Abuhamdeh, S, & Nakamura, J. (2014). Flow. In Csikszentmihalyi, M. (eds.), Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology. (pp. 227-236). New York: Springer. National Research Council. (2004). Engaging Schools: Fostering High School Students’ Motivation to Learn. Reschly, A. and Christenson, S. (2012). Jingle, Jangle, and Conceptual Haziness: Evolution and Future Directions of the Engagement Construct. In S.L. Christenson, A.L. Reschly, C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 3-20). New York:NY, Springer. Schlechty, P. C. (2011). Engaging students: The next level of working on the work. John Wiley & Sons.Shernoff, D., Kelly, S., Tonks, S., & Anderson, B. (2016). Student engagement as a function of environmental complexity in high school classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 43, 52–60. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.12.003 Skinner, E.A. & Pitzer, J.R. (2012). Developmental Dynamics of Student Engagment, Coping, and Everyday Resilience. In S.L. Christenson, A.L. Reschly, C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 21-44). New York:NY, Springer. |