STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
Teacher instruction either inspires or dulls engagement. The launching (contexts) and consolidating (situations) that you create influence students more than any other aspect of their education (Parsons et al., 2014). Other elements can inspire students, but your teaching practices are at the center of a student’s desire to learn in your classroom. Sadly, educators often focus improvement initiatives on changing students, not changing their own practices. I, too, have been guilty of this. All the research in this book (including Dweck, 2006; Fisher & Frey, 2015; Muhammad, 2018; Ryan & Deci, 2000a, 2000b) tells us that educators are the ones who need to adjust. It also tells us that when we do adjust and use the most effective strategies, our students are more likely to succeed (Hattie, 2012).
How should educators and other stakeholders define engagement? What is its significance? How can they measure it? What are its elements? How can educators and stakeholders implement those elements? We’ll answer these questions in this chapter.
Definition
Because I reveal what the motivations are for each mindset, let me distinguish between the two concepts. Although some use these terms interchangeably, motivation is not equivalent to engagement. Motivation prompts us to act; it’s the driving force behind what we educators do. Ryan and Deci (2000a) distinguish between two main types—(1) intrinsic and (2) extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation means “doing something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable” and extrinsic motivation means “doing something because it leads to a separable outcome” (Ryan & Deci, 2000a, p. 55). Motivation that’s intrinsic comes from within; extrinsic comes from elsewhere, and the most common in traditional classrooms are rewards (a free homework pass, for example) and punishments (a docked grade for incomplete homework).
Engagement is bigger than that. It blends positive motivation with academics, feelings about school, and self-regulating behaviors. It may help to think of the relationship like this: engagement is the destination, instruction is the car, and motivation is the gasoline.
If asked about engagement, most teachers would identify elements of student behavior like raising hands, attending class, or completing homework. When a student is disengaged, it may be easy to identify behaviors such as sleeping, doing other work, or even disrupting as disengagement. In my experience, when teachers talk about engagement, we identify behavior first because it’s observable. As researchers and education consultants Adena M. Klem and James P. Connell (2004) spell out, “Regardless of the definition, research links higher levels of engagement in school with improved performance” (page 3). That bare-bones breakdown implies how significant engagement is.
Significance
Student engagement is a valuable tool for predicting academic performance. In fact, it is a “robust predictor of student learning, grades, achievement, test scores, retention, and graduation” (Skinner & Pitzer, 2012, p. 21), as student disengagement can lead to dropping out. Increasing student engagement helps educators to change the school, district, community, and, most important, a student’s life. To help elaborate on this point, I need to share a personal story.
I was a Detroit kid. Living three doors down from me was my best friend for most of my childhood, Joshua. We spent every day together for most of our young lives. Joshua and I both attended public school until ninth grade. At that point, we began attending different schools. I knew Joshua was a brilliant, intellectual guy—he was an avid science, fantasy, historical fiction, and comic book reader and had deep passions for the arts, including anime (long before it was popular in the U.S.) and all kinds of music from all over the world. He excelled at social studies and science. Beyond that, he was a kind and moral person; he was the voice of reason when we were heading toward neighborhood trouble.
Joshua dropped out of high school at sixteen. Students who drop out are less likely to find jobs, less likely to earn a living wage, more likely to live in poverty, and more likely to suffer from a variety of adverse health outcomes (Rumberger, 2011). They’re also more likely to commit crimes (Levin, Belfield, Muennig, & Rouse, 2007).
Joshua experienced many of the life events the statistics say a dropout has. He had a daughter when he was still getting his life together. I have thought about his daughter, whom he named after me and who is my goddaughter, and how life has also stacked the deck against her. According to professors Clive R. Belfield, Henry M. Levin, and Rachel Rosen (2012), and Schuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy (2008), children born to parents who didn’t complete high school are more likely to drop out, too. Despite those statistics, I do have good news, which I’ll share at the end of the book (page 93).
While reflecting on his education, Joshua doesn’t mince words:
My teachers would let the good students do nothing. I was polite and thoughtful; they never pushed me for work or to think. As long as I was quiet, I was doing my job. After a time, I could just stay home and get the same thing done (J. Smith, personal communication, August 16, 2018).
How does a student wind up on this path? Later in the book, I’ll introduce you to one of the student engagement mindsets that Joshua represents—the retreater (page 37). This is why you and I are here: to make sure students like my best friend don’t get left behind.
Elements
Engagement is essential to your students’ success. Teachers are empowered when they understand the following engagement models and can leverage those elements to influence greater engagement in their classrooms and schools.
I include two plentiful, interconnected engagement elements.
1. Cognitive, affective, and behavioral model:
♦ Cognitive
♦ Affective
♦ Behavioral
2. Self-determination theory:
♦ Autonomy
♦ Competence
♦ Relatedness
Those interconnections center on thinking, emotions, and independence, all of which lead to students’ choices about whether to engage in school.
Student Engagement Trifecta: Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral
Engagement appears in three dimensions: (1) affective (feelings), (2) behavioral, and (3) cognitive (adapted from Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Parsons et al., 2014). Figure 1.1 (page 14) is a graphic representation of this concept, showing how the dimensions relate.
Source: Adapted from Appleton et al., 2008; Parsons et al., 2014.
Figure 1.1: Student engagement model.
The first two elements of the student engagement model—cognitive and affective—are symbiotic.
