This challenge from Fred Newmann, professor emeritus of education at the University of Wisconsin, could be the rallying cry for an entire movement of thoughtful theorists, researchers and practitioners in the field. And it makes sense: for students to learn most effectively, they must be committed to what they do.
More specifically, to describe students as “engaged” is to focus on both how they act (enthusiastic, engaged, making an effort) and how they feel (enthusiasm, satisfaction, pride). In contrast, those who are not engaged may simply go through the motions, appearing passive and withdrawn, while feeling bored or anxious.
Like many others, I have often used “engagement” as a kind of shorthand for a good lesson and “engaged” to indicate the desired response from students. But with the help of some clear observations from other thinkers, I took a closer look and concluded that there are two distinct problems with this concept.
First, as I’ve discussed elsewhere, engagement, like a number of other terms, has been co-opted by traditionalists and rendered almost meaningless. Adults talk earnestly about maximizing student engagement, even in classrooms and schools characterized by a “bunch of facts” curriculum or teacher-centered pedagogy where kids have to fill out worksheets, listen to lectures, flip through textbooks, and make up test information. I finally realized that this word just meant that children are really compliant.
But engagement can be a problematic goal even for those of us who remember its original meaning, who value deep thinking, respect student experience, and reject a control-based model in which standardized lessons are reinforced by high-stakes tests. Yes, genuine, joyful engagement is a joy to see, and it can be a prerequisite for learning, or at least contribute to it. But perhaps it is not enough.
Consider this provocative observation by Susan Engel, a developmental psychologist at Williams College: “A teacher may talk about things that fascinate students, and students may be deeply interested in the topic – fully engaged in the discussion or activity. But that alone does not mean that children are asking questions or that their questions reflect curiosity.”
Or consider this comment from Susan Lynn, who helped found the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood: “‘Engaging’ in an experience does not necessarily mean that it is useful or meaningful.” Young children, for example, may be fascinated by images on screens, but they are in “a world mediated by decisions made by someone else about what they look at”, devoid of “acts of will – the expression and satisfaction of innate curiosity”.
Engel and Lynn say we shouldn’t be satisfied just that children are engrossed in what they are doing. An activity can be engaging without being intellectually valuable if it does not support their autonomy and is not connected to what they want to know.