A Focus on Student Engagement
by Dr. Jim Therrell, FaCIT Director, Central Michigan University

Whether face-to-face or online, teaching may be the most difficult, complex profession on the planet. The diversity of students, the complexity, depth, and rapidly changing nature of content, the calls for research/evidence-based methods, emphases on critical/creative thinking, learning how to learn, service-learning, and clear, causative links with assessment, are just a few of the issues that instructors must deal with. The number of variables linked to teaching seems to be increasing daily. This article is an introduction to a focus on student engagement – with upcoming issues devoted to elaboration.

How does a teacher cope with such complexity? The answer may be about focus. With so many variables to consider and all the trendy methods traversing our email, how do you organize your thinking and make sense of your practice? One way of focusing, already in process at Central Michigan University is to center on student engagement in relation to instruction.

First, student engagement is defined as the attention, interest, investment, and effort put forth toward learning by students, implying both affective and behavioral participation in the learning experience (Marks, 2000), which is consistent with students’ “involvement with school” (Finn, 1989, 1993), “mastering the knowledge, skills, or crafts that academic work is intended to promote” (Newmann, Wehlage & Lamborn, 1992, p. 12), and their motivation to learn (Steinberg, 1996). Just as important is that, while student engagement is linked to higher achievement in relation to learning goals by Hake (1998) and others (Finn, 1989, 1993; Finn & Rock, 1997), if it’s lacking, student achievement suffers and retention can spiral downward (Steinberg, 1996; Wehlage, et al, 1989).

In order to make the focus more specific and meaningful, the next step is to flesh out some likely sub-areas of student engagement: instructional design, pedagogy, and teaching-as-performance.  While there is some overlap of these three areas, they are not monolithic.  They are distinct concepts and cover areas that research says are key to increasing student engagement. These sub-areas also lead to the attendant strategies and methods that aid faculty in their efforts to increase student engagement. They are integrated and their order is on purpose, starting with…

Instructional Design

This might involve syllabus construction, the course structure, learning objectives, instructional strategies, rubrics, and how assessment is integrated. Students need clarity as to what constitutes a high level of performance – “How, exactly, do I get an ‘A’ in this course?” Instructional design is often the first and foundational piece for what follows: pedagogy and teaching-as-performance. Without instructional design, the other two pieces may likely flounder. Building a good foundation leads to focused practices in the classroom or online. This sub-area is addressed by the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) in its first benchmark: Level of Academic Challenge. This focuses not just on content, but on higher-order thinking skills (e.g., application, synthesis, evaluation), creative thinking, and analyzing basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory).

Pedagogy

This is the science of teaching. Practices should be research- or evidence-based, not merely a reflection of personal preferences. The NSSE, as one of its five areas of focus, points teachers toward active and collaborative learning. Other pedagogical tools might include problem-based learning, case studies, or even  incorporating lecture and PowerPoint. How do you make the syllabus come alive? Are you focusing on and affording opportunities for students authentically connecting to specific learning objectives?

Teaching-as-Performance

This last piece is the ’driver’ of the first two. You could have the best syllabus and best evidence-based teaching practices, yet still not effectively connect the learner to the learning objectives. Here’s where the teacher opens up the learning process to diverse learners. Do you explain the link between your learning objectives and performance assessments with the utmost precision, clarity, and respect? How do you engender a high level of engagement and/or commitment from students? How do you create a caring community of learners?

Certainly these three sub-areas are in need of critique and elaboration. It’s only a start, and your ideas, comments, and questions are more than welcome (therr1ja@cmich.edu).

References

Finn, |. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59,
117-142.

Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics.
Finn, J. D.,Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at-risk, Journal
of Applied Psychology, 82, 221-234.

Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66 (1), 64-74.

Marks, H.M. (2000). Student Engagement in Instructional Activity: Patterns in the Elementary, Middle, and High School Years. American Educational Research Journal, 37 (1), 153-184.

Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. (1992). The significance and .sources of student engagement. In F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (11-39). New York: Teachers College Press.

Steinberg, L. (1996). Beyond the classroom: Why school reform has failed and what
parents need to do. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Wehlage, G. G., Rutter, R. A., Smith, G. A., Lesko, N., & Fernandez, R. R. (1989). Reducing the risk: Schools as communities of support. Philadelphia: Palmer Press.