Читать книгу Student Engagement Techniques - Elizabeth F. Barkley - Страница 13

MOST OF US chose a field of scholarly endeavor because somewhere along the line we developed a passion for it. Arguably, part of the attraction of a career in academia is the opportunity to share our enthusiasm with others and possibly even recruit new disciples to the discipline. It is therefore disheartening to look out into a classroom and see disengaged students. They may stare at us vacantly or perhaps even hostilely when we attempt to pull them into class discussion and then bolt for the door like freed prisoners the moment it seems safe to do so. Equally distressing are students who obsessively focus on their grades but seem to care little about the learning the grades are supposed to represent. Why do some students bother to register for the course if they are not interested in learning what we are teaching? Why do some students go to such great efforts to cheat when they would learn so much more if they invested even half that effort in studying? Why is it sometimes so hard to get students to think … to care … to participate … to engage?

These, and similarly troubling questions, are part of a national, even international, conversation on student engagement. The focus of the conversation varies, largely because higher education today is astonishingly diverse. Whether the class is large or small, lecture or seminar, onsite or online, it can be a challenge to get students to engage. Whether we are simply attempting to get students to show up or take out their ear buds, or alternately, trying to challenge students to use higher-order thinking, we are all facing the same question: How do we get students to engage in their learning?

The unifying thread among these challenges is “engagement,” but exactly what “student engagement” means is not entirely clear. In an appropriately titled article “Engaged Learning: Are We All on the Same Page?,” Bowen (2005) observes that despite the emerging emphasis on engagement, as evidenced by the number of vision statements, strategic plans, learning outcomes, and agendas of national reform movements that strive to create engaged learning and engaged learners, “an explicit consensus about what we actually mean by engagement or why it is important is lacking” (p. 3). As his statement suggests, the concept of engagement simply means different things to different people. Swaner (2007) expands on this idea, stating that “Rather than being concretely defined in the literature, the concept of engaged learning emerges from multiple frameworks and educational practices” (para. 2). Indeed, there are many different lenses through which one can view the concept of engagement, from cognitive to social psychology, to sociology, to education, and beyond.

What is clear is that it is exceedingly difficult to be against student engagement. Who doesn't want a course full of bright, energetic, and engaged students? That we all hope and strive for student engagement is testament to the concept. So, while some have criticized the term for vagueness, we instead argue that we should celebrate its useful ambiguity: it is a multifaceted, multidimensional metaconcept that gets at something deep and central to teaching and learning in higher education. We argue that we can and should view and study the concept through many different lenses so that we can ultimately understand its core features and elements and in turn use this knowledge to enhance student learning.

While we celebrate the breadth of the concept, we also acknowledge that educators need to agree on a common vocabulary surrounding the concept of student engagement so that we can have meaningful conversations and advance the field of knowledge. Our purpose in Part One of this book, then, is to provide context for how the term is commonly used, share our own definition, and offer a conceptual framework for understanding and promoting student engagement.