Northwest Education | Spring/Summer 2008
Student Engagement Takes Center Stage
Research Brief
Student Engagement Gains Ground
The concept of student engagement has been at the center of the public education debate for nearly 100 years. In the 1910s educational philosopher John Dewey first argued that the American public school system consistently failed to engage and motivate all but a select few students, with dire consequences for a truly democratic society (Dewey, 1916).
In the decades since, the idea that students should be actively engaged in the learning process—rather than passive receptors of knowledge—has fallen in and out of vogue, but has never completely disappeared (National Research Council, 2004). In fact, since the early 1990s student engagement has gained new momentum. Its influence can now be felt in school reform efforts, school governance, service-learning programs, peer mentoring, and student-driven instructional strategies.
Even in the current era of standardized tests and high-stakes accountability, student engagement is recognized as pivotal to addressing rising dropout rates and the achievement gap between poor and minority students and their more affluent peers (Branch-Smith et. al, 2006; Forum for Youth Investment, 2005; Pittman, Irby, Tolman, Yohalem, & Ferber, 2003). For example, instructional strategies such as project-based learning, experiential learning, collaboration, and a curriculum that students perceive as relevant to their lives have been shown to increase student achievement in recent research studies (Akey, 2006; Heller, Calderon, & Medrich, 2003).
Using these and other strategies that research has shown to engage students and improve achievement, especially for at-risk students, is critical in the current era of accountability. As another recent study (Joselowsky, 2007) put it, "This might very well be one of the major challenges in the next decade of education improvement: creating and implementing a vision of education reform that embraces both the call for high standards and accountability and a vision of nurturing and supportive schools that engage students and enable them to thrive cognitively, socially, emotionally, and civically" (p. 257).
Defining Engagement
Most current attempts to define student engagement point to Fred Newmann's influential book Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools (1992). Newmann described engaged students as having "a psychological investment in learning. They try hard to learn what school offers. They take pride not simply in earning the formal indicators of success (grades), but in understanding the material and incorporating it in their lives" (p. 3). Newmann also describes meaningful engagement as "active involvement, commitment, and concentrated attention, in contrast to superficial participation, apathy or lack of interest" (p. 11).
Two aspects of Newmann's definition have especially influenced later studies. First, the idea that engagement takes place on multiple levels—cognitive, psychological, social, and emotional—and second, the emphasis on authentic learning that is motivated by a student's interests rather than simply the desire to get a good grade or the fear of doing poorly on a test.
One study (Strong, Silver, & Robinson, 1995) expanded on the classroom-based, instructional aspect of student engagement by asking both students and teachers two questions: (1) What kind of work do you find engaging? (2) What kind of work do you hate? Both groups responded overwhelmingly that the most engaging work was often collaborative, allowed for creativity, sparked curiosity, and resulted in a feeling of accomplishment. The most hated type of work, meanwhile, was repetitive, required little creative thought, and was forced on a student with little chance to complete the lesson in his or her own way.
A more recent study (National Research Council, 2004) also emphasizes the need for relevant, personalized lessons: "The fundamental challenge is to create a set of circumstances in which students take pleasure in learning and come to believe that the information and skills they are being asked to learn are important or meaningful for them and worth their effort, and that they can reasonably expect to be able to learn the material" (p. 14).Student Engagement In School Reform
As the role of student engagement has expanded, researchers, technical service providers, educators, and students themselves have increasingly made the distinction between authentic or meaningful involvement and superficial involvement that has little long-term effect on student achievement or school change (Fletcher, 2005; Joselowsky, 2005).
Attempts to include "student voice" in school reform efforts, for example, have often proved counterproductive by excluding typically at-risk or underrepresented students. As one study (Rubin & Silva, 2003) put it, "... more often than not, the student perspective is ... represented in fixed and uncomplicated terms that undermine the true agency and diversity of students and student experiences" (p. 1). According to Joselowsky (2007), such "sporadic forays into youth engagement in educational reform" can further marginalize students and create "significant gaps in practical implementation knowledge at the school and district levels, the result of which is a lack of investment to build and sustain structures and practices to institutionalize youth engagement" (p. 258).
Despite these struggles, student engagement continues to gain ground. Several long-term reform efforts, such as the Carnegie Corporation of New York's five-year, $60 million Schools for a New Society initiative have made student engagement a central part of the reform process and are conducting long-term research on the results. Although it's a nearly 100-year-old concept, the golden age of student engagement may still lie ahead.References
Akey, T.M. (2006). School context, student attitudes and behavior, and academic achievement: An exploratory analysis. New York, NY: MDRC. Retrieved April 30, 2008, from http://www.mdrc.org/publications/419/full.pdf.
Branch-Smith, E., Gray, R., Fruchter, N., Hernandez, M., Joselowsky, F., Nichols-Solomon, R., et al. (2006). A framework for success for all students: Collected papers from the technical support team for the Schools for a New Society Initiative and Carnegie Corporation of New York. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from http://scs.aed.org/publications/cogs.pdf.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Fletcher, A. (2005). Meaningful student involvement: Guide to students as partners in school change (2nd ed.). Olympia, WA: SoundOut, & Kenmore, WA: HumanLinks Foundation. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from http://www.soundout.org/MSIGuide.pdf.
Forum for Youth Investment. (2005). Youth engagement in educational change: Working definitions and lessons from the field. Washington, DC: Author.
Heller, R., Calderon, S., & Medrich, E. (2003). Academic achievement in the middle grades: What does research tell us? A review of the literature. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Retrieved April 30, 2008, from http://www.sreb.org/programs/hstw/publications/pubs/02V47_AchievementReview.pdf.
Joselowsky, F. (2005). Students as co-constructors of the learning experience and environment: Youth engagement and high school reform. Voices in Urban Education, 8, 12-22.
Joselowsky, F. (2007). Youth engagement, high school reform, and improved learning outcomes: Building systemic approaches for youth engagement. NASSP Bulletin, 91(3), 257-276.
National Research Council, Committee on Increasing High School Students' Engagement and Motivation to Learn. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students' motivation to learn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Newmann, F.M. (Ed.). (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Pittman, K.J., Irby, M., Tolman, J., Yohalem, N., & Ferber, T. (2003). Preventing problems, promoting development, encouraging engagement: Competing priorities or inseparable goals? Washington, DC: Forum for Youth Investment. Retrieved May 5, 2008, from http://www.forumforyouthinvestment.org/node/105/.
Rubin, B.C., & Silva, E.M. (Eds.). (2003). Critical voices in school reform: Students living through change. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Strong, R., Silver, H.F., & Robinson, A. (1995). Strengthening student engagement: What do students want (and what really motivates them)? Educational Leadership, 53(1), 8-12.